Long-Term Economic Growth in Southwestern Utah

Transcription

An Analysis of Long-Term Economic
Growth in Southwestern Utah:
Past and Future Conditions
Prepared for
The Southwestern Utah Economic Consortium
Prepared by
Jan E. Crispin
John C. Downen
Pamela S. Perlich
James A. Wood
Bureau of Economic and Business Research
The University of Utah
June 2008
© 2008 Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah
Funding Partners of the Southwestern Utah Economic Consortium
Dixie State College of Utah
Southern Utah University
Washington County Economic Development Council
Washington County School District
Dixie Applied Technology College
Five-County Association of Governments
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration
Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative
State Board of Regents, Utah System of Higher Education
Governor’s Office of Economic Development
An Analysis of Long-Term Economic Growth in Southwestern Utah: Past and Future Conditions
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................v
1 Demographic and Socioeconomic Trends and Characteristics.....................................................1
Population Trends: Levels and Changes....................................................................................1
Population Changes Within Counties ......................................................................................11
Population Composition: Age, Sex, Race, Ethnicity ..............................................................19
Households: Number and Size..................................................................................................27
Income and Poverty....................................................................................................................27
Educational Attainment..............................................................................................................29
2 Employment........................................................................................................................................31
Southwest Region........................................................................................................................31
Employment..........................................................................................................................31
Wages......................................................................................................................................35
Occupations...........................................................................................................................37
Commute Patterns................................................................................................................39
Beaver County..............................................................................................................................41
Employment..........................................................................................................................41
Wages......................................................................................................................................43
Occupations...........................................................................................................................46
Major Employers ..................................................................................................................48
Garfield County ...........................................................................................................................50
Employment..........................................................................................................................50
Wages......................................................................................................................................50
Occupations...........................................................................................................................54
Major Employers ..................................................................................................................56
Iron County..................................................................................................................................58
Employment..........................................................................................................................58
Wages......................................................................................................................................60
Occupations...........................................................................................................................63
Major Employers ..................................................................................................................63
Kane County ................................................................................................................................67
Employment..........................................................................................................................67
Wages......................................................................................................................................67
Occupations...........................................................................................................................71
Major Employers ..................................................................................................................73
Washington County ....................................................................................................................75
Employment..........................................................................................................................75
Wages......................................................................................................................................75
Occupations...........................................................................................................................80
Major Employers ..................................................................................................................81
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
i
3 Agriculture........................................................................................................................................... 85
Employment................................................................................................................................. 85
Production.................................................................................................................................... 86
4 Real Estate and Construction........................................................................................................... 88
Land Ownership.......................................................................................................................... 88
Southwest Region........................................................................................................................ 96
Residential Construction ..................................................................................................... 96
Nonresidential Construction.............................................................................................101
Beaver County ...........................................................................................................................103
Residential Construction ...................................................................................................103
Garfield County.........................................................................................................................107
Iron County................................................................................................................................111
Kane County ..............................................................................................................................115
Washington County ..................................................................................................................119
5 Higher Education.............................................................................................................................124
Degrees Awarded ......................................................................................................................128
Enrollment .................................................................................................................................129
6 Personal Income...............................................................................................................................131
Southwest Region......................................................................................................................131
Beaver County ...........................................................................................................................131
Garfield County.........................................................................................................................134
Iron County................................................................................................................................134
Kane County ..............................................................................................................................137
7 Retail Sales.........................................................................................................................................140
Beaver County ...........................................................................................................................140
Garfield County.........................................................................................................................142
Iron County................................................................................................................................142
Kane County ..............................................................................................................................144
8 Tourism .............................................................................................................................................146
Employment...............................................................................................................................146
Traveler Spending .....................................................................................................................146
Room Rents ...............................................................................................................................149
Park Visits...................................................................................................................................150
ii
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
9 Government Finances .....................................................................................................................151
Property Taxes and Assessed Valuations...............................................................................151
Sales Tax Collections ................................................................................................................154
10 Demographic and Employment Projections................................................................................157
Beaver County............................................................................................................................159
Garfield County .........................................................................................................................160
Iron County................................................................................................................................161
Kane County ..............................................................................................................................162
11 Broader Regional Ties .....................................................................................................................164
Economic Areas ........................................................................................................................164
Rural Typologies........................................................................................................................165
Migration.....................................................................................................................................168
Commuting Patterns .................................................................................................................178
Transportation ...........................................................................................................................189
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
iii
Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of the Southwest Region
Population
Population (2007)
Average Annual Growth Rate, 1970–2007
Net In-Migration, 1970–2007
Households (2007)
Employment
203,499
4.8%
119,366
70,181
Total Farm, Nonfarm, and Proprietor Employment (2005)
Farm Employment as a Percent of Total Employment (2005)
Tourism- and Travel-Related Employment
Nonagricultural Employment (2006)
Employer Firms (2006)
Major Nonagricultural Employment Sectors (2006)
Government
Retail Trade
Construction
Accommodation and Food Services
Health Care Services
Retail Sales
Number
12,322
10,817
10,515
8,932
8,539
96,637
5.6%
2.2%
16,285
75,660
5.9%
7,172
Share
16.3%
14.3%
13.9%
11.8%
11.3%
Taxable 2006 Retail Sales (millions)
Average Annual Inflation-Adjusted Growth Rate, 1980–2006
Major Retail Categories (millions)
General Merchandise
Motor Vehicles
Building and Garden
Per Capita Retail Sales (2006)
Wages and Income
$2,139.0
6.8%
Amount Share
$493.8 23.1%
$416.0 19.4%
$333.8 15.6%
$10,923
Total Nonagricultural Wages (2006, millions)
Average Monthly Wage (2006)
Total Personal Income (2005, millions)
Housing, New Construction, and Real Estate
$2,022.7
6.0%
$2,228
$3,940.0
5.9%
Number
85,807
70,803
57,212
13,591
12,223
Total Housing Units (2007)
Total Occupied Units (share of total housing units)
Owner-Occupied (share of total occupied)
Renter-Occupied (share of total occupied)
Recreation or Seasonal Units (share of total housing units)
New Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units (2007)
Value of Residential Construction (2007, millions)
Value of Nonresidential Construction (2007, millions)
Land Ownership
Privately Owned
Federally Owned
State Owned
Total Area
Tax Revenue
Acres
1,676,725
8,815,722
665,150
11,282,236
Property Tax Receipts (2006, millions)
Sales Taxes Disbursed (2006, millions)
Share
82.5%
80.8%
19.2%
14.2%
2,954
$492.9
$201.6
Share
14.9%
78.1%
5.9%
100%
$134.0
$30.1
Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars.
Sources: Utah Population Estimates Committee; Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget; Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;
Utah State Tax Commission; Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center.
iv
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Executive Summary
This study examines the changing structure of Utah’s southwest region and its five counties:
Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane and Washington. The purpose of the study was threefold: (1) to
review the changing economic structure of the southwestern region and its individual counties
over the past 30 years, (2) to develop a current economic baseline, and (3) to estimate future
long-term growth patterns for the area.
Demographic and Economic Baseline
A current baseline of the southwest region is presented at left. Similar profiles for each county in
the region follow.
Demographic Characteristics and Trends
Over the past 40 years, the southwest region has experienced extraordinary population growth.
From 1970 to 2007, population in the region increased at an average annual rate of 4.9 percent,
compared with a statewide average annual rate of 2.6 percent. By 2007, the number of persons
living in southwest Utah totaled 203,499; an increase of 168,275 persons since the 1970 census.
Net in-migration has been the primary driver of regional population growth, accounting for 71
percent of the population increase from 1970 to 2007 (Table 1).
The impressive growth in the region is centered in Washington County, with some spillover into
Iron County, and to a much lesser extent Kane County. Population growth has essentially
bypassed Beaver and Garfield counties. In the 1960 census, Washington and Iron counties
accounted for two-thirds of the regional population. Ten years later their proportion had risen to
nearly three-fourths of regional population. From the 1970s on, the population growth paths of
the five counties of southwest Utah diverged dramatically, and Washington County became the
epicenter of regional growth.
Table 1
Population Change of the Southwest Region, 1970–2007
State
Southwest
Beaver
Garfield
Iron
Kane
Washington
Change
1970
1980
1990
2000
2007
Total Avg An’l % of State
1,059,273 1,461,037 1,722,850 2,233,169 2,699,554 154.8%
2.6%
100%
35,224
55,489
83,263
140,919
203,499 477.7%
4.9%
10.3%
3,800
4,378
4,765
6,005
6,466 70.2%
1.4%
0.2%
3,157
3,673
3,980
4,735
4,872 54.3%
1.2%
0.1%
12,177
17,349
20,789
33,779
44,813 268.0%
3.6%
2.0%
2,421
4,024
5,169
6,046
6,440 166.0%
2.7%
0.2%
13,669
26,065
48,560
90,354
140,908 930.9%
6.5%
7.8%
Share of Region
1970
Beaver
10.8%
Garfield
9.0%
Iron
34.6%
Kane
6.9%
Washington
38.8%
1980
7.9%
6.6%
31.3%
7.3%
47.0%
1990
5.7%
4.8%
25.0%
6.2%
58.3%
2000
4.3%
3.4%
24.0%
4.3%
64.1%
2007
Change
3.2%
1.6%
2.4%
1.0%
22.0% 19.4%
3.2%
2.4%
69.2% 75.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Censuses and Utah Population Estimates Committee.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
v
Compared with the statewide averages, the southwest region’s population is older and less
racially diverse. Almost 15 percent of the region’s population is retirement age (65+), compared
with the statewide rate of 8.6 percent. The minority population of the region in 2000 was 12,142,
or 8.6 percent of total population. Again, this is significantly lower than the statewide share of
14.7 percent. More than half the minorities in the region are Hispanic and almost 18 percent are
American Indian.
Based on census data, the region as a whole had net out-commuting of 971 in 2000. The top
three destination counties of the 3,075 regional out-commuters were Clark County, Nevada,
Coconino County, Arizona, and Salt Lake County.
Employment Characteristics and Trends
Job growth in the southwest region has been spectacular, increasing from 9,583 in 1970 to
75,660 in 2006, an average annual growth rate of 5.9 percent. Over the same period,
nonagricultural employment statewide grew at an average annual growth rate of 3.4 percent.
Additionally, the southwest’s share of statewide nonagricultural employment more than doubled
from 2.7 percent in 1970 to 6.3 percent in 2006.
Washington County is the economic engine fueling this growth. With the addition of 48,332 new
jobs, Washington County accounted for 73 percent of all new jobs in the region and saw its
employment share more than double from 33 percent in 1970 to 68 percent in 2006.
The changing economic structure of the region is evidenced by shifts in employment
concentrations. In 1970, government was the largest employment sector in the region,
accounting for almost one-third of all nonfarm jobs. The second largest sector was trade
(26.0%), followed by services (15.3%). By 2006, government was still a significant employer in
the region, but its relative share of employment had declined by almost half. Trade’s share also
dropped to 21.2 percent, though this included employment in the transportation and utilities
sectors. In contrast, services more than doubled its share of employment to 35.1 percent, due in
part to the expansion of education and health services (11.7%). From 1970 to 2006, the number
of service jobs increased by 25,149 and accounted for 38 percent of the job growth in the region.
Other changes in the
Table 2
region’s economy include
Employment
Concentrations
in Southwest Utah,
the rise of construction
1970 and 2006
from 5.7 percent of
nonagricultural
1970
2006
Industry
No.
Share
Industry
No. Share
employment in 1970 to
Mining
361
3.8%
Mining
370
0.5%
almost 14 percent in 2006
Construction
546
5.7%
Construction
10,515 13.9%
(Table 2).
Manufacturing
912
9.5%
Manufacturing
5,417
7.2%
The southwest region is
home to a plethora of
recreational amenities that
include Zion National
Park, Bryce Canyon
National Park, Capitol
Reef National Park, and
Grand Staircase–Escalante
vi
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
Total
544
5.7%
2,492 26.0%
237
2.5%
1,463 15.3%
3,028 31.6%
9,583 100%
TTU
Information
Financial Activity
Prof. & Bus. Services
Ed. & Health Services
Leisure & Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Total
16,043
1,149
3,232
5,154
8,859
10,385
2,214
12,322
75,660
21.2%
1.5%
4.3%
6.8%
11.7%
13.7%
2.9%
16.3%
100%
Note: TCPU is Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE is Finance,
Insurance, and Real Estate; and TTU is Trade, Transportation, and Utilities.
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
National Monument. Not surprisingly, the counties in the region tend to be more tourismdependent than many of their northern counterparts. In 2006, travelers and tourists spent an
estimated $826.5 million in the region, supporting 16,285 jobs or about 17 percent of total
employment (farm, nonfarm, and the self-employed), compared with the statewide median of 9
percent.
Farm employment has become less important in the region but is still significant in Beaver and
Garfield. In 1970, 13.1 percent of all jobs in the region were in the agricultural sector. By 2005,
farm employment accounted for just 2.3 percent of total employment regionwide, but 17.2
percent of total employment in Beaver and 10.7 percent in Garfield.
Wages
Total real wages in the southwest region topped $2.0 billion in 2006, growing at an average
annual rate of almost 6 percent since 1970. The region’s share of total wages in the state more
than doubled over the period, from 2.0 percent to 4.9 percent. However, the area has seen little
progress in terms of gains in monthly wages. In 1970, the average monthly wage in the
southwest region was $2,149 (in constant 2006 dollars); by 2006, the average monthly wage was
only slightly higher at $2,228. As a percentage of the state average wage they increased slightly
from 75.4 percent to 77.3 percent (Table 3).
Table 3
Real Wage Trends in Southwest Utah, 1970–2006
1970
Total Wages (millions)
Share of State
Average Monthly Wage
vs. State Average
1980
1990
2000
2006
Change
$247.1 $416.3 $622.3 $1,344.9 $2,022.7 718.5%
2.0%
2.3%
2.8%
3.7%
4.9%
2.8%
$2,149 $2,163 $1,931
$2,056
$2,228
3.7%
75.4% 78.8% 75.1%
72.7%
77.3%
1.9%
Note: Wages are in constant 2006 dollars.
Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.
Land Ownership Patterns
Just 15 percent of the land in the five-county southwest region is privately owned. The largest
land owner is the federal government, which controls more than three-quarters of the property
in the region.
Among the federal landholders, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns slightly more
than half, followed by the U.S. Forest Service (17.2%) and National Park Service (8.7%). About
5.9 percent of land in the region is under state ownership, held primarily by the School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration (Exhibit 1).
Garfield, Kane, and Beaver counties have the highest shares of government-owned land. About
95 percent of Garfield, 90 percent of Kane, and 87 percent of Beaver is owned by the federal or
state government. In contrast, Iron County has the highest percentage of privately owned land in
the region (35.7%), followed by Washington County (17.6%).
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
vii
Exhibit 1
Land Ownership in the Southwest by Entity
,
Federal
State
Tribal
Private
Water
Owner
Acres
Federal Government
8,815,722
Bureau of Land Management
5,857,647
BLM Wilderness Area
24,948
US Forest Service
1,863,979
USFS Wilderness Area
82,573
National Park Service
986,575
State Government
665,150
State Trust Land
624,324
State Wildlife Reserve
22,886
State Parks and Recreation
17,937
UDOT
3
Tribal
30,686
Private
1,676,725
Water
93,953
Total
11,282,236
Share
78.1%
51.9%
0.2%
16.5%
0.7%
8.7%
5.9%
5.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
14.9%
0.8%
100%
Source: Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, Last Update March 3, 2007, Downloaded September 19, 2007; Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.
Retail Sales
In 2006, retail sales in the southwest region totaled $2.1 billion, increasing at an inflationadjusted average annual rate of 6.8 percent since 1980. The largest retail sector was general
merchandise with a 23 percent share in 2006, and it has been the most rapidly growing sector in
the region, with sales increasing 763 percent between 1980 and 2006. The second-ranked sector,
in terms of growth, is building and garden, which increased by 616 percent over the past 26
years and is closely tied to the residential construction boom in Washington County. On a percapita basis, inflation-adjusted retail sales increased almost 57 percent, from $6,974 in 1980 to
$10,923 in 2006 (Table 4).
viii
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 4
Gross Taxable Retail Sales in Southwest Utah, 1980–2006
(thousands of constant 2006 dollars)
Building &
Garden
Amount Share
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Change
$46,605.1
$64,043.8
$145,568.1
$154,161.7
$160,102.4
$193,626.9
$261,871.6
$345,127.5
$333,845.3
616.3%
11.9%
9.6%
11.2%
11.4%
11.2%
12.8%
15.0%
17.1%
15.6%
General
Merchandise
Amount Share
$57,185.7
$103,247.6
$227,364.6
$302,914.2
$359,306.5
$381,329.6
$416,856.2
$457,978.6
$493,797.9
763.5%
14.6%
15.6%
17.5%
22.4%
25.2%
25.1%
23.9%
22.7%
23.1%
Food Stores
Motor Vehicles
Amount
Share
Amount
Share
$73,022.5
$171,729.1
$275,143.1
$237,641.3
$217,294.9
$211,847.1
$224,938.4
$246,619.8
$256,897.2
251.8%
18.7%
25.9%
21.2%
17.6%
15.2%
14.0%
12.9%
12.2%
12.0%
$79,898.4
$146,073.9
$258,624.9
$267,977.5
$285,254.6
$303,256.3
$329,287.8
$378,699.3
$416,002.9
420.7%
20.4%
22.0%
19.9%
19.8%
20.0%
20.0%
18.9%
18.8%
19.4%
Apparel &
Accessory
Amount Share
$12,433.1
$21,962.8
$54,646.3
$49,054.8
$48,941.5
$53,466.4
$66,052.1
$75,359.9
$76,503.1
515.3%
Furniture
Amount
3.2% $23,733.5
3.3% $20,163.2
4.2% $80,930.5
3.6% $71,165.1
3.4% $72,789.1
3.5% $79,289.0
3.8% $109,104.3
3.7% $134,240.6
3.6% $140,334.6
491.3%
Share
6.1%
3.0%
6.2%
5.3%
5.1%
5.2%
6.3%
6.7%
6.6%
Eating &
Drinking
Amount Share
$51,184.0
$70,853.5
$144,894.2
$147,312.2
$154,867.5
$160,564.0
$184,717.8
$207,121.7
$219,109.0
328.1%
13.1%
10.7%
11.2%
10.9%
10.8%
10.6%
10.6%
10.3%
10.2%
Miscellaneous
Amount
Per
Capita
Total
Share
(dollars)
$46,845.6 12.0%
$390,907.9 $6,974
$65,781.9 9.9%
$663,855.9 $7,922
$110,450.3 8.5% $1,297,622.1 $9,138
$120,042.9 8.9% $1,350,269.7 $9,044
$129,523.7 9.1% $1,428,080.2 $9,113
$135,148.2 8.9% $1,518,527.5 $9,255
$152,420.0 8.7% $1,745,248.1 $10,075
$170,261.5 8.4% $2,015,408.8 $10,848
$202,515.1 9.5% $2,139,005.1 $10,923
332.3%
447.2%
56.6%
Source: Utah State Tax Commission; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
ix
Construction and Housing
In 2007 the housing inventory for the five-county region totaled 85,807 dwelling units (Table 5).
With 56,316 units, Washington County accounts for two-thirds of the residential units in the
region. Almost one-third of the region’s dwelling units have been built since 2000 and 19,823 of
these were located in Washington County.
About 19 percent of the regional housing inventory is
rental units. Statewide, rental units represent 27 percent
of the housing inventory. Unique to the region is the
large presence of recreation or occasional-use units,
which represent 14.2 percent of the housing inventory.
In Washington County such units are primarily timeshare or second homes, while in other counties in the
region they are recreation homes or cabins.
The permit value of new residential construction since
1975 for the southwest region is $9 billion (in 2007
dollars). Residential construction spending in
Washington County totaled $6.9 billion, or 76.8 percent
of the regional total. Beaver County had the smallest
share at 1.8 percent and a total of $162.5 million in
residential construction since 1975.
Table 5
Housing Profile for the FiveCounty Region, 2007
Total Housing Units
Year-Round Housing Units
Vacant Year Round
Total Occupied Year Round
Owner-Occupied
% of Total Occupied Units
Renter-Occupied
Recreation or Seasonal Units
% of Total Housing Units
% of Units Built Since 2000
Total
85,807
73,584
2,783
70,803
57,212
80.8%
13,591
19.2%
12,223
14.2%
31.0%
Source: Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, University of Utah.
Peak rates of residential construction in the region were reached in 2005 and will likely not be
surpassed for several years (Table 6). Nonetheless, demand for residential units is driven by
demographic and economic conditions (household growth, age structure of the population, net
in-migration, employment growth, income, and real estate prices). These conditions remain
favorable for the southwest region well into the future, and will particularly benefit Washington
County, which is projected to increase its share of regional economic activity over time.
Housing prices vary greatly among counties in the region. Washington County has, by far, the
highest median sales price for existing homes, while Beaver and Garfield have the lowest-priced
existing homes in the region. All counties in the region experienced double-digit price escalation
Nonresidential Construction
The value of nonresidential construction since 1975 in the five-county region totals almost $3.3
billion (in 2007 dollars). Over this period, Washington County has accounted for nearly twothirds of the value of nonresidential construction in the region. Iron County accounts for about
one-quarter and the remaining 10 percent is divided among Beaver, Kane, and Garfield counties.
The record year for nonresidential construction in the region was 2006, with $232 million in
activity driven by Washington County’s record high $184 million in construction (Table 7).
x
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 6
Residential Permitted Construction in Southwest
Utah, 1975–2007
Beaver
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
52
49
65
53
40
41
144
27
28
11
15
14
1
9
12
11
8
11
22
38
65
74
67
59
58
41
25
32
40
22
36
68
54
1,256
Garfield
Iron Kane Washington
12
126
23
31
271
89
44
310
46
40
295
81
30
219
98
20
131
96
33
201
93
24
49
99
30
151
97
39
185
21
27
104
57
35
82
60
23
25
59
19
34
57
6
97
14
8
73
30
19
168
76
26
468
70
37
605
72
33
644
121
53
557
131
69
864
125
76
474
135
50
276
128
89
309
132
68
417
135
55
307
127
58
432
104
55
315
122
54
591
56
61
941
300
86
773
332
139
656
151
1,449 11,150 3,337
125
446
562
841
714
459
517
431
648
905
3,128
896
533
493
482
805
1,048
1,266
2,114
2,697
2,017
1,929
1,514
1,687
1,519
1,562
1,740
1,995
2,678
3,794
3,860
2,256
1,954
47,615
Total
338
886
1,027
1,310
1,101
747
988
630
954
1,161
3,331
1,087
641
612
611
927
1,319
1,841
2,850
3,533
2,823
3,061
2,266
2,200
2,107
2,223
2,254
2,621
3,210
4,517
5,198
3,515
2,954
64,807
Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xi
Table 7
Nonresidential Construction in Southwest Utah, 1975–2007
Beaver
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
$7,498.9
$46.1
$1,520.1
$1,672.3
$1,282.6
$1,831.1
$1,771.7
$182.4
$2,331.0
$2,518.9
$1,972.6
$13.2
$1,929.8
$437.9
$687.7
$1,774.1
$2,194.4
$2,420.0
$8,911.5
$6,360.7
$26,810.8
$23,256.3
$4,822.1
$4,491.3
$12,199.6
$3,934.6
$3,969.0
$2,388.0
$1,060.7
$483.5
$1,933.1
$7,801.1
$4,512.8
$145,020.0
Garfield
$25.7
$407.1
$258.6
$7,237.3
$66,079.1
$5,051.0
$959.3
$601.0
$4,108.9
$4,245.4
$765.2
$696.6
$5,005.8
$2,883.5
$2,956.3
$1,067.9
$338.0
$5,409.1
$5,108.1
$4,553.3
$2,346.6
$6,502.9
$2,446.5
$2,508.3
$11,057.1
$5,545.8
$384.8
$413.2
$1,702.2
$2,075.5
$1,918.4
$9,469.4
$1,902.2
$166,030.1
Iron
Kane
$2,784.8
$6,074.5
$6,879.3
$1,220.9
$3,918.2
$8,819.3
$19,865.1
$2,329.9
$5,502.0
$25,040.8
$23,926.4
$7,558.8
$16,451.4
$13,199.4
$12,076.7
$3,960.0
$18,421.3
$93,810.9
$31,394.2
$65,814.0
$38,718.9
$32,108.0
$31,390.3
$18,707.7
$43,586.8
$64,608.2
$38,428.7
$16,841.2
$17,132.3
$17,323.0
$18,628.8
$27,165.3
$30,699.7
$764,387.2
$248.1
$701.1
$677.6
$1,241.9
$4,217.4
$1,365.7
$1,588.5
$11,071.7
$1,272.7
$1,289.3
$1,291.6
$877.7
$3,020.0
$2,788.5
$2,165.2
$567.0
$1,390.2
$4,050.4
$4,550.4
$2,092.3
$2,787.5
$7,903.8
$6,915.9
$2,117.0
$303.1
$1,550.8
$1,274.8
$1,336.2
$720.4
$396.5
$2,709.2
$2,854.5
$25,978.4
$103,315.4
Washington
$23,265.6
$15,656.5
$9,841.8
$34,630.5
$25,158.3
$24,912.0
$13,195.8
$25,755.8
$32,044.1
$43,030.2
$94,221.1
$42,885.1
$30,752.9
$26,537.4
$32,615.1
$26,379.2
$31,990.3
$28,771.8
$79,985.2
$55,058.8
$125,597.7
$84,266.3
$135,642.0
$44,494.2
$52,969.3
$95,404.4
$51,305.0
$146,714.1
$55,892.3
$133,529.6
$135,076.9
$184,249.8
$138,533.2
$2,080,362.1
Total
$33,823.1
$22,885.4
$19,177.5
$46,002.8
$100,655.6
$41,979.2
$37,380.3
$39,940.9
$45,258.8
$76,124.6
$122,176.8
$52,031.4
$57,159.9
$45,846.8
$50,501.1
$33,748.1
$54,334.3
$134,462.2
$129,949.5
$133,879.1
$196,261.6
$154,037.3
$181,216.7
$72,318.5
$120,115.9
$171,043.7
$95,362.3
$167,692.7
$76,508.0
$153,808.1
$160,266.5
$231,540.1
$201,626.3
$3,259,114.8
xii
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Demographic and Employment Projections
The extraordinary growth in the southwest region will continue well into the future. Based on
projections produced by the Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB), the
southwest region will continue to grow faster than the state as a whole and this growth will be
driven by expansion in Washington County.
From 2000 to 2020, population in the region is projected to increase at an average annual rate of
4.9 percent, reaching 371,946 people by 2020—a gain of 230,000 people over 20 years. In
comparison, statewide population growth is projected to increase at an average rate of 2.4
percent annually.
For the study, BEBR aggregated GOPB’s age-based population projections into three groups:
0–17 years (youth), 18–64 years (working age), and 65+ (retirement age). All age groups are
projected to more than double. The largest gains will be in the working-age population, which
will reach 219,976 persons by 2020, representing an average annual growth rate of 5.4 percent.
The youth population will increase at an annual rate of 4.5 percent, reaching 107,580 persons by
2020. The retirement-age population is projected to grow the slowest, increasing by 23,505
persons, for an average annual rate of 3.8 percent (Table 8).
Table 8
Southwest GOPB Projections, 2000–2020
Population
Age Group
0–17
18–64
65+
Total
Area
Beaver
Garfield
Iron
Kane
Washington
Southwest
2000–2020
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020 Amount Percent‡
44,265 52,763 65,853 85,063 107,580 63,315 143.0%
76,856 106,093 139,435 176,559 219,976 143,120 186.2%
20,885 26,923 32,050 37,856 44,390 23,505 112.5%
142,006 185,779 237,338 299,478 371,946 229,940 161.9%
6,023
6,341
6,674
7,691
9,178
3,155
4,763
4,703
5,092
5,412
5,843
1,080
34,079 41,397 50,601 59,212 68,315 34,236
6,037
6,211
6,893
7,839
8,746
2,709
91,104 127,127 168,078 219,324 279,864 188,760
142,006 185,779 237,338 299,478 371,946 229,940
Shares
2000 2020
31.2% 28.9%
54.1% 59.1%
14.7% 11.9%
100% 100%
1.4%
4.2% 2.5%
0.5%
3.4% 1.6%
14.9% 24.0% 18.4%
1.2%
4.3% 2.4%
82.1% 64.2% 75.2%
100% 100% 100%
‡ Figures in the 2000–2020 Percent column for the counties represent each county’s contribution to the region’s growth.
Employment
NAICS Sector
Natural Resources and Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Trans., Utilities
Information
Financial Activity
Professional & Business Services
Education & Health Services
Other Services
Government
Total
2005–2020
2005
2010
2015
2020 Amount Percent
2,968
2,757
2,623
2,520
–448 –15.1%
10,945 15,036 19,344 23,577 12,632 115.4%
5,026
5,933
7,401
8,908
3,882
77.2%
18,922 25,683 32,169 37,805 18,883
99.8%
1,355
1,804
2,299
2,753
1,398 103.2%
8,671 11,830 15,244 18,762 10,091 116.4%
8,343 11,738 15,604 19,552 11,209 134.4%
10,179 15,077 21,093 28,489 18,310 179.9%
11,776 16,399 20,765 25,387 13,611 115.6%
5,774
7,797
9,848 12,110
6,336 109.7%
12,590 16,929 22,511 27,712 15,122 120.1%
96,549 130,983 168,901 207,575 111,026 115.0%
Shares
2005 2020
3.1% 1.2%
11.3% 11.4%
5.2% 4.3%
19.6% 18.2%
1.4% 1.3%
9.0% 9.0%
8.6% 9.4%
10.5% 13.7%
12.2% 12.2%
6.0% 5.8%
13.0% 13.4%
100% 100%
Note: Shading indicates the age group’s, county’s, or sector’s share is projected to increase by 2020.
Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2008 Baseline.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xiii
Although population growth is expected for all counties in the region, population is projected to
become even more highly concentrated in Washington County. In 2000, about 64 percent of the
region’s residents lived in Washington County, by 2020, 75 percent of the region’s residents will
reside in the county.
Employment in the region is projected to more than double from 96,549 in 2005 to 207,575 in
2020, adding 111,026 jobs. The average annual rate of job growth during this 15-year period is
5.2 percent, more than double the statewide rate of 2.5 percent.
The fastest growing sectors, as measured by percentage increase, are expected to be education
and health services (up 179.9 percent), professional and business services (up 134.4 percent), and
government (up 120.1 percent). Financial activity, leisure and hospitality, and construction are all
expected to more than double. The natural resources and mining sector is projected to lose jobs,
shrinking by 15 percent; and in fact this sector is projected to shrink in every county in the
region.
The industries adding the most jobs will be trade, transportation, and utilities (18,883 new jobs),
education and health services (18,310 new jobs), and government (15,122 new jobs). With these
increases, by 2020 the largest employment sector in the region will be trade, transportation, and
utilities. Education and health services will grow into the second largest sector, followed closely
by government. Leisure and hospitality and construction round out the top five (Table 8).
The largest employment gains will be in Washington County, with the addition of more than
90,000 jobs, or 81 percent of all new jobs in the region. With an average annual increase of 6.0
percent, employment growth in Washington is expected to outpace employment growth
regionally and statewide. By 2020, almost 75 percent of all jobs in the region will be in
Washington County, up from 66 percent in 2005.
Education
The southwest region is home to two institutions of higher education—Southern Utah
University (SUU) in Iron County and Dixie State College (Dixie) in Washington County. Dixie
offers a range of certificate programs, associate’s degrees, and bachelor’s degrees. SUU offers
certificate programs, associate’s degrees, bachelor’s degrees, and master’s degrees in eight fields
of study. Since the 1981–82 academic year, both institutions have reported impressive gains in
both the number of degrees awarded and enrollment.
Since 1981–82, the number of certificates and degrees awarded at Dixie has increased 410
percent, from 258 to 1,317. The most popular degree at Dixie is the associate’s degree in general
studies, which accounted for over half the degrees awarded in 2007. Dixie also supports
Washington County’s growth by training workers in health professions and in business and
marketing.
Demand is especially strong for Dixie’s bachelor’s degree programs. Dixie began offering a
bachelor’s degree in 2000–01. Since then, the number of program offerings has increased from
one to nine and the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded increased from one to 134.
SUU has experienced similar growth, awarding 301 degrees in 1981–82 and 1,250 in 2007, a 315
percent increase. SUU trains future teachers and businesspeople. Of the 868 bachelor’s degrees
xiv
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
awarded in 2007, 185 were in education and 135 were in business and marketing. The most
popular of SUU’s eight master’s degrees is the education program, which claimed 142 of the 204
degrees awarded in 2007. SUU has also
Table 10
experienced strong growth in its master’s
Enrollment and Degrees Awarded at
program in business and marketing.
Enrollment (measured in annualized full-time
equivalent, both budget-related and selfsupport) has more than tripled at both SUU and
Dixie over the past 25 years; however,
enrollment growth has not increased steadily, on
an annual basis, at either institution. Each
institution has experienced at least three yearover-year enrollment declines since 1981–82.
In 1981–82, 1,921 students were enrolled at
SUU. By 2006–07, the number had increased to
6,937—a peak enrollment year at the institution.
Dixie’s enrollment grew from 1,380 in 1981–82
to 4,202 in 2006–07. Enrollment at Dixie
peaked in 2003–04 at 4,542 and has been
declining in the past few years (Table 10). These
declines were the result of several changes
initiated by Dixie in 2003–04, and included (1)
eliminating the summer workshop student
count from the fall enrollment count, (2)
transferring certain certificate programs off
campus to the Dixie Applied Technology
College, and (3) a change in scholarship policy
requiring 12 credit hours per term instead of 15.
Southern Utah University and Dixie
State College,
1981–82 to 2006–07
Academic
Year
1981–82
1982–83
1983–84
1984–85
1985–86
1986–87
1987–88
1988–89
1989–90
1990–91
1991–92
1992–93
1993–94
1994–95
1995–96
1996–97
1997–98
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
Change
AAGR
Annualized FTE Degrees Awarded
SUU
Dixie
SUU
Dixie
1,921
1,380
301
258
2,173
1,436
411
497
2,315
1,449
400
702
2,410
1,483
431
391
2,361
1,646
444
416
2,685
1,843
560
536
2,779
1,812
543
656
2,894
1,802
512
710
3,034
1,992
570
616
3,439
2,156
616
656
3,754
2,298
682
836
3,938
2,299
623
568
4,352
2,438
735
765
4,583
2,638
719
791
4,807
2,964
790
778
5,153
3,171
925
855
5,646
3,389
1,109
946
5,731
3,607
1,046
896
5,896
3,728
1,069
963
5,978
3,990
1,086
1,042
6,134
4,212
1,052
1,049
5,911
4,389
1,006
1,364
5,759
4,583
958
1,580
6,202
4,542
1,001
1,278
6,300
4,372
1,189
1,326
6,937
4,202
1,250
1,317
261.1% 204.5% 315.3% 410.5%
5.3%
4.6%
5.9%
6.7%
Source: Utah System of Higher Education data books.
Enrollment numbers provided for spring 2008
show increases in both headcount and FTE at Dixie and SUU over spring 2007. SUU’s
headcount increased by 327, for a total of 5,898. The FTE count increased 309, for a total of
5,137. Dixie’s headcount increased by 96, for a total of 4,908, and its FTE count increased by
112, for a total of 3,562.
Both SUU and Dixie are projected to increase enrollment by about one-third by the 2020–21
academic year. However, population growth in the region will remain strong, especially in age
groups that typically utilize higher education services. This, combined with growth projected in
many employment sectors that may require higher education degrees, could result in enrollments
that exceed the projections.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xv
Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Beaver County
Population
Population (2007)
Median Age (2006)
Households (2007)
Median Household Income (1999)
Employment
6,466
1.4%
522
30.2
2,173
$34,544
Total Farm, Nonfarm and Proprietor Employment (2005)
Farm Employment as a Share of Total Employment
Government
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Retail Sales
Number
673
449
321
275
231
Food Stores
Eating & Drinking
Motor Vehicles
Wages and Income
Amount
$12.1
$7.0
$3.3
Median Sales Price of Existing Single-Family Homes (2006)
Land Ownership (2007)
Privately Owned
Federally Owned
State Owned
Total Area
Tax Revenue
3,173
1.8%
17.2%
1,973
2.1%
215
Share
34.1%
22.8%
16.3%
13.9%
11.7%
$28.2
1.0%
Share
42.9%
24.8%
11.7%
$4,361
$52.9
2.2%
$2,235
$175.9
3.3%
Number Share
2,980
2,479 83.2%
2,061 83.1%
418 16.9%
450 15.1%
$127,470
54
$9.4
$4.5
Acres
Share
208,885 12.6%
1,277,518 77.2%
167,288 10.1%
1,654,444 100%
$3.5
$0.7
Sources: Utah Population Estimates Committee; U.S. Census Bureau; Utah Governor’s Office of Planning
and Budget; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce
Services; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; USDA 2002 Census of Agriculture; Utah State Tax
Commission; Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center.
xvi
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Beaver County
Beaver County has been the slowest-growing county in the southwest region. Since 1970,
population increased at an annual rate of 1.4 percent, reaching a peak of 6,466 persons in 2007, a
gain of just 2,616 persons in 37 years.
Natural increase drives population growth in the county. From 1970 to 2007, net in-migration
totaled 522, accounting for less than 20 percent of the population increase. In 20 of the past 37
years, the county experienced net out-migration.
In the 2000 census, minorities accounted for 8.6 percent of the population in the county. Almost
two-thirds of the minority population was Hispanic, two-thirds of which are estimated to be
foreign-born.
In 2006, nonfarm employment in Beaver totaled 1,973. From 1970 to 2006, nonfarm
employment grew at an annual rate of 2.1 percent, the slowest rate of growth in the five-county
region. Employment in the county as a share of regional employment dropped from almost 10
percent in 1970 to 2.6 percent in 2006.
Beaver County is the most dependent on government and agriculture of all counties in the
region. In 2006, government accounted for 34 percent of nonfarm jobs, and agriculture
accounted for about 17 percent of all farm and nonfarm jobs in the county. The largest
employer in Beaver is Circle Four Farms, which provides about 20 percent of all jobs in the
county.
Due to a tight labor market, the average monthly wage in Beaver County is consistently higher
than the regional average. In 2006, the average monthly wage in Beaver was $2,235, compared
with the region’s average of $2,228. The highest-paying jobs in the county are in
transportation/utilities and manufacturing.
Beaver is the only county in the region with net in-commuting. In 2000, a total of 148 more
people traveled to the county for work than commuted outside the county to work. Slightly
more than half of those traveling to Beaver for work came from neighboring Iron County.
More than three-quarters (77.2 percent) of the land in Beaver County is owned by the federal
government. State-owned land accounts for one-tenth of the county; about one-eighth of the
county is privately owned.
Retail sales in Beaver County totaled $28.2 million in 2006, an inflation-adjusted increase of just
31.9 percent over their level in 1970. Food stores, eating and drinking establishments, and motor
vehicle dealers are the main recipients of retail dollars in Beaver County, accounting for 80
percent of the county’s retail sales in 2006.
Beaver County was the only county in the region with a decline in per capita retail sales, from
$4,859 in 1980 to $4,361 in 2006, an indication that residents shop outside the county.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xvii
In 2007, the housing inventory totaled 2,980 units; 2,479 units are occupied year-round. Of the
year-round units, about 17 percent are rental units, a share that is slightly lower than the regional
share. About 11 percent of housing units in Beaver County have been built since 2000.
Residential construction in the county is characterized by low annual rates of activity, less than a
2 percent increase in inventory, a relatively high percentage of manufactured housing (20
percent), and a high concentration of single-family units—the number of new apartment units in
Beaver is very limited.
Investment in nonresidential construction in the county since 1975 totals $145 million (in
constant 2007 dollars). The largest investment—$45 million—occurred in 1995 and 1996 with
the construction of Circle Four Farms.
Beaver County’s population is projected to increase by more than 50 percent from 2000 to 2020,
reaching 9,178 persons by the end of the period—an annual growth rate of 2.1 percent,
substantially below the 4.9 percent annual average projected for the region.
The retirement-age population (65+) is expected to post the strongest growth over the period.
By 2020, persons aged 65 and older will account for 15 percent of the county’s population, up
slightly from 2000. The slowest-growing age group will be the school-age population (0–17),
which is projected to increase by about 35 percent over the period. From 2000 to 2020, the
school-age population, as a share of total population, is projected to decline from 34 percent to
30 percent.
Employment growth will outpace population growth in the county by a significant margin,
increasing at an average annual rate of 3.5 percent from 2005 to 2020. The largest increases, as
measured by number of new jobs, will be in government (590 new jobs) and trade,
transportation, and utilities (426 new jobs).
The fastest-growing sector, as measured by percentage increase, will be education and health
services, which is projected to grow 118 percent; however, it will still be a small component of
the county’s economy, accounting for only 5.6 percent of all jobs in 2020.
xviii
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Garfield County
The economic growth that is the hallmark of the southwest region has essentially bypassed
Garfield County. Garfield is very rural and, with a total 2007 population of 4,872, the least
populated county in the region. From 1970 to 2007, the county grew at an annual rate of 1.2
percent, the slowest of the five counties. It currently accounts for about 2.4 percent of the
region’s population.
Population growth in Garfield is driven by natural increase rather than in-migration. Net inmigration in the county from 1970 to 2007 was 205, or about 12 percent of the population
increase. However, over the past five years, the county has experienced net in-migration on a
yearly basis.
In 2000, 6.2 percent of the county’s population were minorities, the second lowest share in the
region. Fewer than half of all minorities in the county are Hispanic (46 percent). Native
Americans make up one-fourth of the minority population.
Nonagricultural employment in the county totaled 2,260 in 2006, up from 984 in 1970. Over the
period, employment grew at an annual rate of 2.3 percent, slightly faster than Beaver but
significantly lower than the average annual regional growth rate of 5.9 percent.
Since 1970, the biggest shifts in the county’s economy were the sharp decline in manufacturing,
which dropped to 4.3 percent of total nonagricultural employment in 2006 from about 21
percent in 1970, and an even sharper rise in leisure and hospitality employment.
Garfield County depends more on tourism for employment than any other county in the state,
as reflected in the county’s employment structure. The county’s leisure and hospitality industry
accounts for the highest share of nonfarm employment of any county in Utah. In 2006, more
than one-third of the county’s jobs were in this category. Government accounted for 26.3
percent of all nonfarm employment in the county.
While agriculture has become less important to the county’s economy, it still represents more
than 10 percent of total employment (farm, nonfarm and proprietors), down from about 18
percent in 1970.
At $1,906, the average monthly wage in Garfield County in 2006 was the lowest in the region.
Over time, the county has lost ground due to the low-paying jobs in tourism-related sectors. In
1970, the average monthly wage in the county was within 95 percent of the regional average; by
2006, it measured just 85.6 percent of the regional average.
The highest-paying jobs in Garfield County are in mining ($4,063), information ($3,376), and
government ($2,519). Mining and information are small sectors, but government accounts for
more than one-quarter of all nonfarm jobs. The two lowest-paying sectors were other services
($1,097) and leisure and hospitality ($1,209). These sectors account 38 percent of all workers in
the county.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xix
Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Garfield County
Population
Population (2007)
Median Age (2006)
Households (2007)
Employment
4,872
1.2%
205
36.9
1,723
$35,180
Government
Health Care and Social Assistance
Retail Trade
Information
Retail Sales
Number
759
596
181
162
126
Food Stores
Motor Vehicles
Miscellaneous
Wages and Income
Amount
$5.9
$4.5
$3.8
Privately Owned
Federally Owned
State Owned
Total Area
Tax Revenue
3,303
2.2%
10.7%
2,260
2.3%
248
Share
33.6%
26.4%
8.0%
7.2%
5.6%
$20.7
1.3%
Share
28.4%
21.9%
18.5%
$4,338
$51.7
2.1%
$1,906
$104.4
2.5%
Number Share
3,290
2,164 65.8%
1,833 84.7%
331 15.3%
1,082 32.9%
$127,360
139
$16.8
$1.9
Acres
Share
169,873
5.1%
2,983,884 89.6%
159,942
4.8%
3,331,079 100%
$3.8
$0.8
xx
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Garfield County has the smallest share of privately owned land in the region. Nearly 90 percent
of the county is federally owned. The state owns about 5 percent and the remaining 5 percent is
privately held.
Garfield County has the second slowest rate of growth in retail sales among the five counties.
From 1980 to 2006, retail sales increased from $14.9 million to $20.7 million, or 39 percent.
Only Beaver County reported a lower rate of growth.
Per capita retail sales in 2006 totaled $4,338, the lowest in the region and just 7.9 percent higher
than their 1980 level, suggesting that Garfield is likely losing sales to Iron and Washington
counties.
In 2007, Garfield County had a housing inventory of 3,290 units; nearly one-third of these are
seasonal or recreational units. Occupied units totaled 2,164, of which only 15.3 percent are
rental. Almost 16 percent of all housing units in the county have been built since 2000.
With 139 permits issued, 2007 was an all-time record for residential construction in the county.
Detached, single-family homes dominate residential development in the county. Since 1975, only
three rental units received building permits. Garfield County has yet to have any condominium
development.
The investment in nonresidential construction since 1975 totals $166 million (in 2007 dollars).
Over the study period, nonresidential construction in the county has been relatively flat, typically
totaling less than $6 million annually. The largest project in the county was the construction of a
uranium processing plant in 1979 valued at $56 million. In 2007, building permits for $1.9
million in nonresidential construction were issued, the lowest level in four years.
Going forward, Garfield County is projected to grow more slowly than any other county in the
region. From 2000 to 2020, the county’s population is expected to grow at a rate of 1 percent
per year, far below the regional average of 4.9 percent. By 2020, a total of 5,843 persons will
reside in Garfield.
The retirement-age population (65+) is projected to grow the fastest, with an increase of more
than 50 percent from 2000 to 2020. By 2020, the retirement-age population will total 1,027, or
about 18 percent of the population, up from 14 percent in 2000.
The school-age population (0–17) is projected to decline in both number and share. By 2020,
there will be fewer children living in the county than there were in 2000. This age group’s share
of the population is expected to fall from 32 percent to 26 percent.
Employment is projected to grow at an annual rate of 1.8 percent from 2005 to 2020, with
virtually no change in the county’s economic structure, as tourism and government will continue
to drive the county’s economy.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xxi
Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Kane County
Population
Population (2007)
Median Age (2006)
Households (2007)
Employment
6,440
2.6%
2,234
38.6
2,479
$34,247
Government
Other Services (except Public Administration)
Retail Trade
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Retail Sales
Number
721
605
407
378
259
Food Stores
Motor Vehicles
Eating and Drinking
Wages and Income
Amount
$14.1
$10.5
$10.1
Privately Owned
Federally Owned
State Owned
Total Area
Tax Revenue
4,111
3.9%
4.1%
3,092
4.4%
338
Share
23.3%
19.7%
13.2%
12.3%
8.4%
$54.3
3.5%
Share
26.0%
19.3%
18.6%
$8,630
$72.1
4.5%
$1,942
$171.1
4.3%
Number Share
5,094
3,288 64.5%
2,803 85.2%
485 14.8%
1,739 34.1%
$152,220
151
$30.1
$23.6
Acres
Share
270,235 10.3%
2,177,294 82.9%
106,046
4.0%
2,627,378 100%
$7.1
$1.1
xxii
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Kane County
In 2007, Kane County’s population reached a record high of 6,440 person, surpassing the
estimated population in Garfield County and nearly equaling that of Beaver. Historically, Kane
County has had the smallest population of the five-county region, with a population that
remained below 2,500 through 1970. Since 1970, the county has added a total of 3,990 persons,
with net in-migration accounting for half (2,234) of the county’s growth from 1970 to 2007.
Kane County’s minority population is very small in both number and share. In the 2000 census,
322 minority persons were living in Kane County, representing 5.3 percent of the population—
the lowest share in the region. Hispanics are the single largest group, representing 43 percent of
the minority population.
Nonagricultural employment in Kane County totaled 3,092 in 2006, a five-fold increase since
1970. This represents an average annual growth rate of 4.5 percent, second only to Washington
County.
Since 1970, Kane County’s economy has shifted from concentrations in government and trade
to a significant concentration in services, primarily tourism-related services. In 1970, government
and trade accounted for 60 percent of jobs in the county. By 2006, government’s share of
employment had fallen to 23 percent, and trade/transportation/utilities to 14.5 percent.
Employment in services totaled 1,404 and accounted for 45 percent of all jobs. The leisure and
hospitality sector is the largest of the service sectors, accounting for almost 30 percent of all
nonfarm jobs.
Despite a 15 percent increase in total nonfarm wages in 2006, the average monthly wage in Kane
was only $1,942—just 87 percent of the regional average, the second lowest in the region and
fifth lowest in the state. The highest-paying jobs were in government ($2,442), followed closely
by other services ($2,392). The lowest-paying jobs were leisure and hospitality ($1,260) and
trade/transportation/utilities ($1,750).
Kane County has the region’s largest share of its workforce working out-of-state and the largest
number of net out-commuters (379). In 2000, a total of 754 residents of Kane commuted to
jobs outside the county; well over half worked outside Utah, primarily in Arizona.
Kane County is second only to Garfield in the scarcity of privately owned land. Just 10.3 percent
of the land in Kane is privately held. The federal government owns almost 83 percent of the
land in the county, while the state of Utah (primarily SITLA) owns 4 percent.
Retail sales in the county have grown at an impressive annual rate of 3.5 percent, increasing from
$22.0 million in 1970 (in constant 2006 dollars) to $54.3 million in 2006. Per capita retail sales
growth was the second highest in the region, increasing by almost 59 percent from $5,440 in
1970 to $8,630 in 2006.
In 2007, Kane County had a housing inventory of 5,094 units. Over one-third of these were
seasonal or recreational units, the highest percentage of the five southwestern counties. The
number of occupied units was 3,288, of which just 485 or 14.7 percent were rental units.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xxiii
Twenty-six percent of all housing units in Kane County have been built since 2000, reflecting
the housing boom that began in the region in 2005 when residential construction reached an alltime high of 300 new units. From 2005 to 2007, permits for a total of 783 dwelling units were
issued in Kane County.
Typically the value of non-residential construction in Kane County rarely exceeds a few million
dollars. However, in 2007, nonresidential construction hit an all-time high of $23.6 million with
the groundbreaking for Amangiri Resort near Lake Powell ($16.2 million) and the Red Desert
Hotel in Kanab ($5 million).
Over the next few years, the Amangiri Resort will contribute to higher levels of nonresidential
construction in the county. The development costs for the first phase of the resort are estimated
at $125 million. The resort will occupy 1,900 acres, 600 of which will be set aside for luxury spas
and villas. The resort will create 200 permanent jobs.
By 2020, Kane County’s population is projected to be 8,746, growing at an annual rate of 1.9
percent. Most of this gain will be in the working-age population (18–64), which is projected to
increase from 3,246 in 2000 to 4,910 in 2020. The school-age population (0–17) is expected to
grow at the slowest rate and by 2020 will represent about 27 percent of the population, down
from 29 percent in 2000. The retirement-age group (65+) will increase to 456, but as a share of
total population remains unchanged at 16.8 percent.
Employment in Kane County is projected to increase at an annual rate of 2.6 percent, from
4,116 in 2005 to 6,028 by 2020, with little change in the overall structure of the economy. The
fastest-growing sector will be leisure and hospitality, adding 630 jobs over the period and
accounting for about 28 percent of all jobs in the county by 2020. Other fast-growing sectors
will be other services (305 new jobs) and government (304 new jobs). The fewest job gains will
be in information (13) and manufacturing (80). The natural resources and mining sector will
actually lose jobs, with a corresponding decline in its employment share from 4.7 percent to 2.9
percent.
xxiv
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Iron County
The population of Iron County now totals 44,813, increasing at an annual rate of 3.6 percent
from its 1970 population of 12,300. Most of the growth in the county occurred after 1990
(23,903 additional persons since then), with net in-migration accounting for almost two-thirds of
the increase.
Prior to 1970, the populations of Iron County and Washington County were within 1,000 of
each other. Since 1970, Iron County’s role in the region has declined significantly. Its current
population is about one-third that of Washington County, and its share of regional employment
is 22 percent—down from about 35 percent in 1970.
In 2000, nearly 3,000 minorities lived in Iron County, or about 9 percent of the county’s
population—the highest percentage in the region. About half of the minority population is
Hispanic, and one-quarter American Indian.
Iron County is the second largest employment center in the southwest region, with about onequarter of all nonfarm jobs in the region. Nonfarm employment in Iron County totaled 16,802
in 2006, up from 3,830 in 1970. This represents an average annual rate of increase of 4.2 percent,
the second-fastest-growing county in the region. Since 1970, employment growth in Iron County
contributed almost 20 percent of regional employment growth.
Government has been, and continues to be, a major employer in Iron County. In 1970, it
provided more than one-third of all nonfarm jobs; trade and services were the other major
sectors with 23.7 percent and 12.8 percent, respectively. By 2006, government’s share of
employment had declined, but it still employed 25 percent of all nonfarm workers and accounted
for 22 percent of employment growth from 1970 to 2006. All services combined represented
almost 30 percent of nonfarm jobs. Employment in construction grew significantly and by 2006
accounted for 11 percent of all nonfarm employment.
In 2000, Iron County had net out-commuting of 357 workers. Most out-commuting (67 percent)
was to other counties within the region, primarily Washington County. Only 12 percent of outcommuters worked outside the state.
Total real wages (adjusted for inflation) have quadrupled in Iron County since 1970, reaching
$414.4 million in 2006. In spite of this growth, the county’s share of total wages in the region
declined over the period from 42 percent to about 21 percent.
In 2006, the average monthly wage in Iron County was $2,055, an increase of 7.5 percent from
the previous year. However, even with this gain, the county’s average monthly wage measures 92
percent of the regional average. In comparison, in 1970, the average monthly wage in Iron
County was 5 percent higher than the regional average. A large student workforce, combined
with the current industry mix explain the county’s below-average wages in 2006.
By far, financial activities (banks, real estate brokers, etc.) pay the highest monthly wage ($3,046)
followed by manufacturing ($2,554). In contrast, the average monthly wage in the leisure and
hospitality sector was $883.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xxv
Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Iron County
Population
Population (2007)
Median Age (2006)
Households (2007)
Employment
44,813
3.6%
16,952
25.6
14,302
$33,114
Government
Retail Trade
Construction
Manufacturing
Retail Sales
Number
4,198
2,255
1,839
1,781
1,563
General Merchandise
Building and Garden
Motor Vehicles
Wages and Income
Amount
$112.4
$83.5
$67.4
Privately Owned
Federally Owned
State Owned
Total Area
Total Annualized FTE Enrollment (2006–07)
Total Degrees Awarded
Tax Revenue
21,955
2.2%
2.6%
16,802
4.2%
1,520
Share
24.9%
13.4%
11.0%
10.6%
9.2%
$418.2
4.4%
Share
26.9%
20.0%
16.1%
$9,631
$414.4
3.9%
$2,055
$799.1
4.4%
Number Share
18,127
15,387 84.9%
11,450 74.4%
3,396 22.1%
2,099 11.6%
$150,750
656
$858.5
$30.7
Acres
Share
754,031 35.7%
1,215,177 57.5%
141,184
6.7%
2,113,335 100%
6,937
1,250
$31.2
$6.0
Sources: Utah Population Estimates Committee; U.S. Census Bureau; Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget; Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; USDA 2002 Census of
Agriculture; Utah State Tax Commission; Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center; Utah System of Higher Education.
xxvi
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Iron County has the highest proportion of privately owned land among the five counties in the
southwest region. More than one-third of the county is in private ownership. The federal
government owns more than half and state lands make up about 7 percent. Iron is one of two
counties with Paiute tribal lands.
Retail sales growth in Iron County has been impressive, increasing at an inflation-adjusted rate
of 4.4 percent annually, from $136.9 million in 1980 to $418.2 million in 2006. Iron’s per capita
sales were $9,631—more than double those in Beaver and Garfield, and $1,000 more than Kane
County’s. Almost half of all retail dollars in the county are spent at general merchandise and
building and garden stores.
In 2007, Iron County had a housing inventory of 18,127. Just over one in ten housing units are
for seasonal or recreational use, the lowest share among the five southwest counties. A total of
15,387 units are occupied, a quarter of which are rental units—the highest percentage in the
region. This is a reflection of the off-campus housing needs of students at Southern Utah
University. One out of four housing units in the county has been built since 2000.
Residential construction has been exceptionally strong in the county over the past four years.
Since 2004, building permits have been issued for 2,961 residential units in Iron County. New
residential construction in Cedar City has accounted for most of these units.
Since 1975, Iron County has issued building permits for $764.4 million (in 2007 dollars) of
nonresidential construction. The peak year was 1992, with $93.8 million, which included the
American Pacific facility to manufacture automobile airbag parts. The second peak year was
2000, with the construction of the $26 million SUU Physical Education Building and a Wal-Mart
($9 million). Over the past two years, nonresidential construction has been exceptionally strong,
totaling $27.2 million in 2006 and $30.7 million in 2007.
Between 2000 and 2020, Iron County’s population is expected to double, reaching 68,315 by the
end of the period. All three major age groups (school-age, working-age, and retirement-age) are
projected to grow by more than 90 percent; however, the retirement population (65+) becomes
more prevalent over time. This age group is projected to grow 120 percent, increasing as a share
of population from 8.6 to 9.4 percent.
The school-age population (0–17) is expected to increase 140 percent, but sees no change in its
share of the county’s population. Although the working-age population is projected to increase
by about 96 percent, its share of the county’s population declines from 60.3 percent in 2000 to
58.8 percent in 2020.
All employment sectors in Iron County are expected to grow except natural resources and
mining, which will lose about 94 jobs. Government adds the most jobs, accounting for 21
percent of job growth from 2005 to 2020. Education and health services will post the largest
percentage increase, growing by 166.2 percent over the period, and adding 2,272 new jobs. The
slowest-growing sectors will be manufacturing (up 42 percent) and information (up 56 percent).
Southern Utah University (SUU) is the largest of the two institutions of higher education in the
southwest region, and the largest employer in Iron County. SUU offers graduate, baccalaureate,
and associate degrees. It also offers certificates in five fields of study.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xxvii
Enrollment at SUU has more than tripled over the last 25 years, growing from 1,921 annualized
full-time equivalents in the 1981–82 academic year to 6,937 in 2006–07. Enrollment growth has
been strong, dipping just three times since 1982. The largest drops occurred in 2002–03, with an
enrollment decline of 223 over the previous year, and in 2003–04, with a further decline of 152.
By 2004–05, enrollment had grown to 6,202, exceeding its previous high mark of 6,134.
The number of degrees awarded has also increased significantly. Since the 1981–82 academic
year, the total number of degrees awarded at SUU grew from 301 to 1,250 in 2007—an increase
of 315 percent. Bachelor’s degrees accounted for almost 70 percent of all degrees awarded in
2006–07.
SUU has seen very strong growth in its master’s degree programs. It currently offers master’s
degrees in eight fields, but most are awarded in education and business. Since the first ones were
granted in 1985–86, SUU has awarded a total of 1,566 masters degrees; since 1989–90, 1,004
have been awarded in education and 527 in business and marketing. The academic year 2006–07
was a peak year, with a total of 204 master’s degrees awarded.
Enrollment growth is projected to slow from its fast pace, with enrollment increasing by little
more than one-third by the 2020–21 academic year. However, given the demographic and
economic growth projections for the southwest region, enrollments may be much higher than
forecast.
xxviii
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Washington County
By all measures, Washington County has been the economic driver of the southwest region since
1970. The county’s unprecedented growth makes it the epicenter of activity in the region, as it
garners an ever-increasing share of the region’s population, employment, and retail sales.
In 2007, an estimated 140,908 persons lived in Washington County, an increase of 90,354 people
since 1970. The county’s population almost doubled for each of the three decades from 1970 to
2000, averaging an amazing 6.5 percent growth annually—the highest rate of any county in the
state.
Population in the region is becoming more concentrated in Washington County. In 2007, seven
of ten residents in the region lived in Washington compared with one in three in 1970. The
county’s current population exceeds that of Iron County by almost 100,000.
Net migration is the primary driver of population growth in the county. Cumulative net inmigration into Washington since 1970 approaches 100,000 and accounts for almost 80 percent
of the county’s population growth. This is a pattern consistent with Arizona and Nevada, but
not the state of Utah as a whole.
The spectacular growth in Washington County is the culmination of a moderate climate, the rich
natural resource endowment of the area, national migration patterns, aging Baby Boomers, and
access to road and air transportation.
The age distribution of Washington County is distinctive because of the overrepresentation of
older age groups. In 2007, an estimated 20 percent of the county’s population was at least 60
years old, roughly double the state rate.
The minority population of the county increased from 1,895 in the 1990 census to 8,061 by
2000. This increase of 6,166 represents 15 percent of the county’s population growth from 1990
to 2000.
The largest minority population is Hispanic (59 percent), nearly half of whom are foreign-born.
Based on the age distribution of this population (concentrated in prime young working ages with
more males than females), it is evident that Hispanics have migrated to Washington County for
economic opportunity, not retirement living.
In 2006, nonfarm employment totaled 51,527, increasing at an average rate of 8 percent annually
since 1970; more than double the statewide rate of 3.4 percent. In the past three years, job
growth has never slipped below the 9 percent mark.
Washington County is the economic engine for employment growth in the southwest region,
adding 48,330 nonfarm jobs to the region’s economic base since 1970—almost three-quarters of
all new jobs in the region from 1970 to 2006.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xxix
Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Washington County
Population
Population (2007)
Median Age (2006)
Households (2007)
Employment
140,908
6.5%
99,453
30.0
49,504
$37,212
Construction
Retail Trade
Government
Retail Sales
Number
8,289
7,747
6,739
6,141
5,684
64,095
7.7%
0.8%
51,527
8.0%
4,851
Share
13.0%
15.0%
10.5%
11.9%
11.0%
General Merchandise
Motor Vehicles
Building and Garden
Wages and Income
$1,617.6
8.5%
Amount Share
$377.5 23.3%
$330.3 20.4%
$241.3 14.9%
$11,991
$1,431.6
8.3%
$2,315
$2,689.4
7.6%
Number Share
56,316
47,485 84.3%
39,065 82.3%
8,420 17.7%
6,852 12.2%
$235,070
1,954
$351.2
$138.5
Acres
Share
273,700 17.6%
1,161,850 74.7%
90,689
5.8%
1,556,000 100%
Privately Owned
Federally Owned
State Owned
Total Area
Dixie State College
Total Annualized FTE Enrollment (2006–07)
Tax Revenue
4,202
1,317
$88.4
$21.5
Sources: Utah Population Estimates Committee; U.S. Census Bureau; Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget; Bureau of Economic
and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; USDA 2002
Census of Agriculture; Utah State Tax Commission; Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center; Utah System of Higher Education.
xxx
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
The main drivers of this growth have been the trade and service sectors, and to a lesser extent
construction and government. From 1970 to 2006, trade and services added nearly 29,000 jobs.
Construction added almost 8,000 and government about 5,200.
Reflecting the major employment gains over the period, total inflation-adjusted wages increased
from $80.1 million in 1970 to $1.4 billion in 2006, accounting for two-thirds of all wages in the
region.
The real average monthly wage in the county increased from $2,089 in 1970 to $2,315 in 2006
(in constant 2006 dollars), and went from about 3 percent below the regional average in 1970 to
nearly 4 percent above it in 2006.
Most of the region’s largest employers are located in Washington County. Two companies, WalMart Distribution and IHC’s Dixie Regional Medical Center, employ at least 1,000 people. No
other county in the region has an employer of this size.
Washington County has net out-commuting; that is, more people left the county to work than
came in. Almost half of those who commuted outside the county to work went outside the state,
primarily to Nevada. Twenty-five percent of out-commuters went to other counties within the
region. Almost 40 percent of people commuting to Washington County came from counties
within the southwest region. The largest share of these (86 percent) came from Iron County.
About one-third of in-commuters came from outside the state, primarily from Arizona.
Almost 18 percent of land in Washington County is privately owned, the second highest rate in
the region. The federal government owns 75 percent of Washington County (most of which is
owned by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM) and SITLA owns about 5 percent. SITLA’s
holdings include some of the most developable land in the county.
The BLM has been a source of developable land over the years and can sell, auction, or give land
to cities. Over the past 10 years, BLM has transferred about 17,000 acres for private and public
use. In recent years, challenges by environmentalists have made the transfer process long and
difficult, a situation that will likely continue.
Washington County is the dominant retail market in the five-county southwest region. In 2006,
it captured almost 76 percent of all retail sales in the region ($1.6 billion in sales), and had the
highest retail sales per capita at $11,991. The rapid growth in the retail sector has been fueled by
the county’s population expansion as well as by a growing number of shoppers coming from
other counties in the region. By way of comparison, 2006 total retail sales in Salt Lake County
were $11.1 billion and per capita sales were $8,192.
In 2007, Washington County’s housing inventory was 56,316 units. Recreational and seasonal
units account for 12.2 percent of the inventory, comprising primarily time-share and second
homes. Of the 47,485 occupied units, 82 percent were owner-occupied and the remaining 17.7
percent were rentals. More than one-third of the county’s housing inventory has been built since
2000.
Over the past 30 years, new home construction in Washington County has outpaced that of all
other counties in the region combined. The number of permits issued in Washington County is
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xxxi
more than double the total number of permits issued in Beaver, Kane, Garfield, and Iron
counties.
The building permit value of nonresidential construction since 1975 in Washington County
totals about $2.1 billion. For the past four years, the value of nonresidential construction in
Washington County has exceeded $100 million annually. This marks 2004 to 2007 as the period
of greatest commercial development in the history of Washington County. A record high was
established in 2006 with $184 million of nonresidential construction. The single largest
nonresidential project in Washington County’s history is the IHC Dixie Medical Center, which
received a permit in 2002 valued at $79.4 million.
Dixie State College is one of two institutions of higher education in the region and has been one
of the county’s major employers for many years. The college offers associate’s and baccalaureate
degrees as well as numerous certificate programs.
Enrollment has more than tripled at Dixie over the past 25 years, growing from 1,380 annualized
full-time equivalents in the 1981–82 academic year to 4,202 in 2006–07. Since 1981, enrollment
growth has been fairly steady until recently. Enrollment peaked at 4,583 in 2003–04 and has
been declining in the past few years (Table 10). These declines were the result of several changes
initiated by Dixie in 2003–04, and included (1) eliminating the summer workshop student count
from the fall enrollment count, (2) transferring certain certificate programs off campus to the
Dixie Applied Technology College, and (3) a change in scholarship policy requiring 12 credit
hours per term instead of 15.
Enrollment numbers provided for spring 2008 show increases in both headcount and FTE at
Dixie over spring 2007. Dixie’s headcount increased by 96, for a total of 4,908, and its FTE
count increased by 112, for a total of 3,562.
Since the 1981-82 academic year, the total number of degrees and certificates awarded at Dixie
has increased 410 percent, from 258 to 1,317. Most of the degrees awarded at Dixie are
associate’s degrees, which totaled 864 in 2006–07. Dixie’s most popular program is the
associate’s degree in general studies (684 of 864 in 2007).
Dixie currently offers bachelor’s degrees in 10 fields. Dixie’s bachelor’s degree program is
relatively new (in place since 2000–01) but very successful. In 2006–07, a total of 134 bachelor’s
degrees were awarded, up from just one degree in 2000–01. The largest number of degrees were
awarded in business (55) and education (48).
Enrollment growth at Dixie is projected to increase by a little more than one-third by 2020.
However, given the demographic and economic growth projections for the southwest region in
general, and for Washington County in particular, enrollments may be much higher than
forecast.
The era of extraordinary growth in Washington County is projected to continue well into the
future. From 2000 to 2020, Washington County’s population is expected to triple, growing by
188,760 persons to 279,864. This represents an average rate of about 5.9 percent annually—
exceeding the regional annual growth rate of 4.9 percent and the statewide annual growth rate of
2.5 percent..
xxxii
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Over time, population in the southwest region will become more concentrated in Washington
County. Because Washington County garners about 82 percent of the projected increase in the
region’s population from 2000 to 2020, by the end of the period 75 percent of people living in
the southwest will reside in the county.
The working-age population is projected to grow the fastest, more than tripling in size. By 2020,
there will be 119,191 more persons between the ages of 18 and 64 living in Washington County
than there were in 2000. The school-age population will increase almost 180 percent, from
28,326 in 2000 to 79,260 by 2020.
Washington County will retain its role as a retirement community, even though the retirementage population is projected to grow more slowly than either the working-age or school-age
populations. From 2000 to 2020, the retirement-age population (65+) is projected to increase at
an annual rate of 4 percent, slightly higher than the statewide rate of 3.7 percent. Further, about
77 percent of the retirement population in the region will be living in Washington County in
2020. In absolute numbers, only three counties in Utah are projected to have more growth in the
retirement-age population; these include Salt Lake, Utah, and Davis.
The employment projections for Washington County show the addition of 90,000 new jobs, or
about 81 percent of all new job growth in the region from 2005 to 2020. By the end of the
period, 73 percent of all jobs in the region will be in Washington County, up from 69 percent in
2005.
The fastest-growing sector will be education and health services (201 percent increase), followed
by government (169 percent), professional and business services (157 percent), and leisure and
hospitality (143 percent). Natural resources and mining is the only sector projected to decline
over the period.
The most significant employment shift projected for the county is the increase in education and
health services. In 2005, this sector’s share of employment was about 12 percent. By 2020, its
share is projected to increase to 15.2 percent.
The long-term growth prospects for Washington County remain very favorable. The forces
combining to promote growth, climate, natural resources, and aging Baby Boomers moving into
rural communities in the West, will continue to benefit the county well into the future.
Washington County’s proximity to more expensive communities in the southwestern U.S. is a
significant advantage. Although housing costs in the county are high compared with other
counties in the region, Washington County is a low-cost alternative to “sunbelt” living in
Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Palm Springs.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
xxxiii
1
Demographic and Socioeconomic Trends and Characteristics
Population Trends: Levels and Changes
Well into the twentieth century the relatively isolated counties of southwest Utah maintained
small populations. As was the case throughout rural Utah, there was steady out-migration of
these populations to urban areas in search of economic opportunity. The combined population
of the five counties was 30,428 in the 1940 census and 35,224 three decades later in the 1970
enumeration (Exhibit 1.1). Then, as had been the case in Arizona, Nevada, and California in the
1950s, beginning in the 1970s, the total number of persons living in southwest Utah took off on
an exponential growth path. Net migration for the combined five-county region has remained
positive on an annual basis ever since. This is in contrast to the state, which experienced a sevenyear stretch of net out-migration beginning in 1984 before returning to sustained inflows. As
impressive as the growth of southwestern Utah has been, this regional growth story is really
centered in St. George in Washington County, and has subsequently extended somewhat to Iron
County and to a lesser extent Kane County, while essentially bypassing Beaver and Garfield
counties.
Early in the twentieth century the populations of all five counties in southwest Utah remained
less than 5,000. By 1930 Cedar City had established itself as one of only three commercial and
population centers in Utah outside the Wasatch Front.1 Soon after, St. George was among three
additional emerging population and trading centers.2 Certainly by the 1940s on, Iron and
Washington counties expanded their dominance within southwest Utah. These two counties
followed similar growth paths, with both approaching populations of 10,000 in 1950. From 1900
to 1970, Iron and Washington counties accounted for almost all (97 percent) of the regional
population growth. Meanwhile, the combined population of Beaver, Garfield, and Kane counties
was roughly the same in 1970 as it had been in 1900. Beaver and Garfield counties had
experienced some growth until the 1940s, when population began a sustained period of decline.
Over the same period, population in Kane County was mostly stable with oscillations within a
range of about 800. Washington and Iron counties were two-thirds of the regional population in
the 1960 census; ten years later that proportion had risen to nearly three-fourths. From the
1970s on, population growth paths among the five counties of southwest Utah diverged
dramatically and Washington County became the epicenter of regional growth.
1 The other two centers were Price and Richfield. See Chapter 2 of Multi-County Regions in Utah, by Sherman
Fitzgerald, Bureau of Community Development, University of Utah, in cooperation with the State Planning
Coordinators Office, March 1970.
2 Ibid. The others were Vernal and Moab.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
1
Exhibit 1.1
Population of Counties in Southwest Utah: 1900–2000
Decennial Counts
1900
3,613
3,400
3,546
1,811
4,612
16,982
1910
4,717
3,660
3,933
1,652
5,123
19,085
1920
5,139
4,768
5,787
2,054
6,764
24,512
1930
5,136
4,642
7,227
2,235
7,420
26,660
1940
5,014
5,253
8,331
2,561
9,269
30,428
1950
4,856
4,151
9,642
2,299
9,836
30,784
1960
4,331
3,577
10,795
2,667
10,271
31,641
1970
3,800
3,157
12,177
2,421
13,669
35,224
1980
4,378
3,673
17,349
4,024
26,065
55,489
1990
2000
4,765
6,005
3,980
4,735
20,789
33,779
5,169
6,046
48,560
90,354
83,263 140,919
County Share of Southwest Region
1900
1910
Beaver
21.3%
24.7%
Garfield
20.0%
19.2%
Iron
20.9%
20.6%
Kane
10.7%
8.7%
Washington
27.2%
26.8%
1920
21.0%
19.5%
23.6%
8.4%
27.6%
1930
19.3%
17.4%
27.1%
8.4%
27.8%
1940
16.5%
17.3%
27.4%
8.4%
30.5%
1950
15.8%
13.5%
31.3%
7.5%
32.0%
1960
13.7%
11.3%
34.1%
8.4%
32.5%
1970
10.8%
9.0%
34.6%
6.9%
38.8%
1980
7.9%
6.6%
31.3%
7.3%
47.0%
1990
5.7%
4.8%
25.0%
6.2%
58.3%
2000
4.3%
3.4%
24.0%
4.3%
64.1%
1910s
8.9%
30.3%
47.1%
24.3%
32.0%
28.4%
1920s
–0.1%
–2.6%
24.9%
8.8%
9.7%
8.8%
1930s
–2.4%
13.2%
15.3%
14.6%
24.9%
14.1%
1940s
–3.2%
–21.0%
15.7%
–10.2%
6.1%
1.2%
1950s
–10.8%
–13.8%
12.0%
16.0%
4.4%
2.8%
1960s
–12.3%
–11.7%
12.8%
–9.2%
33.1%
11.3%
1970s 1980s
15.2%
8.8%
16.3%
8.4%
42.5% 19.8%
66.2% 28.5%
90.7% 86.3%
57.5% 50.1%
1990s
26.0%
19.0%
62.5%
17.0%
86.1%
69.2%
Beaver
Garfield
Iron
Kane
Washington
Southwest
Percentage Change by Decade
1900s
30.6%
7.6%
10.9%
–8.8%
11.1%
12.4%
Beaver
Garfield
Iron
Kane
Washington
Southwest
Source: BEBR analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data and Utah History Encyclopedia.
Southwest Utah C ounty Populations: 1900-2000
Small C ounties
Southwest Utah C ounty Populations: 1900-2000
All C ounties
100,000
6,000
90,000
Beaver
Garfield
Iron
Kane
Washington
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
40,000
2,000
30,000
20,000
Beaver
Garfield
Kane
1,000
10,000
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
00
20
90
19
80
19
70
19
50
60
19
19
40
19
30
19
20
19
19
00
19
00
20
80
90
19
19
60
70
19
19
40
50
19
19
20
30
19
19
10
00
19
19
2
10
-
-
Washington County
The era of extraordinary Washington County population growth began in the 1970s and still has
not fully run its course. Population almost doubled for each of the three decades from 1970 to
2000, rising from 13,669 to 90,3543 (Exhibit 1.1, above). With an estimated population of
140,908 in 2007 (Exhibit 1.2), it is on pace to replicate this performance in the current decade.
Washington County is home to seven of ten residents in the southwest region. Its current
population exceeds that of Iron County by almost 100,000.4
Since 1970, the average annual growth rate of the Washington County population has averaged
an amazing 6.5 percent, as compared with 2.5 percent for the state.5 Since 1990, Washington
County has added nearly 92,000 residents, accounting for about one-tenth of the population
growth of the entire state. The county reached a milestone in 2003 when it was designated as the
St. George, Utah Metropolitan Statistical Area.6 According to the estimates produced by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census, it has grown by 39.8 percent from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006, ranking it
as the MSA with the highest growth in the nation.7
In the most recent set of Utah Population Estimates Committee (UPEC) estimates, the
population growth rate of Washington County from 2006 to 2007 has moderated somewhat (to
4.5 percent). Even with this recent “slowdown” its growth rate is still strong and exceeds all but
one other county in the state: Utah County.
Net migration to Washington County from 1970 to present has contributed more to population
growth than has natural increase, a pattern consistent with Arizona and Nevada, but not the
state of Utah as a whole. Nearly 80 percent of the county’s growth has come from net move-ins
over this 37-year period. Cumulative net in-migration to Washington County since 1990
approaches 75,000, which is nearly one-fifth (18 percent) of the state total net in-migration over
the period.
According to data from the 2000 census, one-third of Washington County residents moved into
the county from 1995 to 2000 (Table 1.1). These were divided roughly equally between those
with in-state and those with out-of-state origins. Utah, California, Nevada, and Arizona were the
largest sending states, with Salt Lake (by far the largest gross flows of any state or county), Utah,
Davis, and Iron counties the largest sending counties within Utah. Less than 3 percent of
persons residing in Washington County in 2000 reported living outside the U.S. in 1995.8
Population also moved from Washington County in large numbers to elsewhere in Utah as well
as Nevada, Arizona, and California. On a net flow basis, in- and out-flows between Washington
Population increased by at least 86 percent for each of the three decades, as measured by percentage change in
consecutive decennial census counts.
4 While the Utah Population Estimates Committee has released its July 1, 2007 county estimates, the Bureau of the
Census estimates are still pending. The Bureau of the Census July 1, 2006 estimate for Washington County was
126,312, as compared with the UPEC estimate of 134,889 (a difference of 8,587).
5 This is the simple average of year-over annual rates of change.
6 This designation was based on the revised standards of the Office of Management and Budget that were issued in
2003 and based on an analysis of Census 2000 data.
7 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Press Release: “50 Fastest Growing Metro Areas Concentrated in West and South,”
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/009865.html, April 5, 2007.
8 This is based on an analysis of the county-to-county migration special tabulation from the 2000 census. Individuals
who are residents of a given county on April 1, 2000 are asked where they lived in 1995. Note that there may have
been multiple moves in the interim.
3
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
3
Exhibit 1.2
Washington County Population Estimates and Components of Population
Change, 1940–2007
4
BUREAU
Population
6.0%
160,000
Population
140,000
5.0%
C ounty Share of the State
120,000
4.0%
100,000
3.0%
80,000
60,000
2.0%
40,000
Share of the State
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Natural
Net InBirths
Deaths
Increase Migration
227
62
165
0
236
62
174
26
222
83
139
–4,239
243
44
199
2,801
262
55
207
–707
248
59
189
11
262
75
187
213
333
81
252
–252
340
64
276
–276
313
77
236
864
329
93
236
–236
324
63
261
–361
312
73
239
–339
298
69
229
–229
311
71
240
–140
280
80
200
100
278
80
198
2
301
72
229
–229
290
81
209
–209
271
82
189
11
275
81
194
–194
245
89
156
–56
260
81
179
–279
261
85
176
–276
237
95
142
–42
269
102
167
33
273
104
169
231
304
104
200
400
280
104
176
524
288
92
196
504
317
121
196
704
367
128
239
961
395
122
273
777
415
149
266
1,184
480
131
349
201
495
135
360
490
542
163
379
871
598
161
437
863
665
187
478
1,022
718
166
552
1,398
753
180
573
827
813
189
624
876
785
179
606
1,294
786
216
570
930
744
231
513
1,487
776
222
554
2,946
912
258
654
3,246
923
294
629
1,871
884
314
570
1,230
877
321
556
1,644
936
371
565
1,223
925
386
539
4,166
972
408
564
2,938
1,049
454
595
3,707
1,176
497
679
5,577
1,205
502
703
4,454
1,483
520
963
4,150
1,508
571
937
3,118
1,674
571
1,103
1,398
1,738
662
1,076
2,450
1,842
667
1,175
1,824
1,737
662
1,075
4,723
1,923
688
1,235
5,613
2,018
697
1,321
4,696
2,233
803
1,430
6,119
2,269
759
1,510
8,301
2,660
902
1,758
6,014
2,697
848
1,849
4,160
July 1 Population
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Population
9,200
9,700
5,600
8,600
8,100
8,300
8,700
8,700
8,700
9,800
9,800
9,700
9,600
9,600
9,700
10,000
10,200
10,200
10,200
10,400
10,400
10,500
10,400
10,300
10,400
10,600
11,000
11,600
12,300
13,000
13,900
15,100
16,150
17,600
18,150
19,000
20,250
21,550
23,050
25,000
26,400
27,900
29,800
31,300
33,300
36,800
40,700
43,200
45,000
47,200
48,988
53,693
57,195
61,497
67,753
72,910
78,023
82,078
84,579
88,105
91,104
96,902
103,750
109,767
117,316
127,127
134,899
140,908
1.0%
20,000
0
1940
0.0%
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee.
Components of Population Change
9,000
Net In-Migration
8,000
Natural Increase
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year-Over Rates and Amounts of Population Change
12%
12,000
Percent
10%
10,000
Amount
8%
8,000
6%
6,000
4%
4,000
2%
2,000
0%
0
-2%
1950
-2,000
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Notes: Population estimates for July 1 were produced by the Utah
Population Estimates Committee (UPEC). UPEC changed its rounding
convention. Estimates before 1990 are rounded while those for 1990 and
beyond are not rounded. Birth and death data are from the Utah Bureau
of Health Statistics.
Source: Downloaded from www.governor.state.ut.us/dea on November
19, 2007.
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
County and Nevada were roughly equal; this
was also the case with Arizona. Net
migration from 1995 to 2000 was strongly
positive from California to Washington
County. People also migrated from
Washington County to Salt Lake, Utah, and
Iron counties. However, these outflows were
more than offset by inflows; there were no
significant net out-migration flows from
Washington to other counties in the state.
The largest positive net migration within
Utah to Washington County in the 1995–
2000 period was from Salt Lake, Davis,
Utah, and Weber counties.
Table 1.1
Washington County Migration,
1995–2000
State-to-County
In-State-to-County
In-Flows
Total
26,656
Utah
12,880
California
3,588
Nevada
1,893
Arizona
1,242
Idaho
804
In-Flows
Total
12,880
Salt Lake
5,259
Utah
2,034
Davis
1,308
Iron
964
Weber
675
Out-Flows
Total
14,604
Utah
6,450
Nevada
1,803
Arizona
1,254
California
1,190
Idaho
577
Out-Flows
Total
6,450
Salt Lake
1,942
Utah
1,389
Iron
819
Davis
441
Cache
357
Iron County
The population of Iron County, which
Net
Net
remained within 1,000 of Washington
Total
6,430
Total
12,052
County from 1900 through 1970, has grown Utah
6,430
Salt Lake
3,317
2,398
Davis
867
to an estimated 44,813 in 2007 (Exhibit 1.3). California
Washington
451
Utah
645
This is slightly less than a third the size of
Wyoming
356
Weber
466
Washington County, but over two-and-aMontana
295
Sevier
244
half times the combined population of the
remaining three southwestern Utah counties. Source: Census 2000, County-to-County Migration File.
Prior to 1990, the population growth of Iron
County resembled that of small rural counties throughout the state. Although natural increase
was consistently positive, net migration cycled between in- and out-migration depending upon
labor market conditions. On a cumulative basis, the county experienced net out-migration from
1940 to 1990.
Since 1990, Iron County population growth has accelerated significantly, averaging 4.5 percent
annually. Population more than doubled, from 20,910 in 1990 to 44,813 in 2007, with net inmigration accounting for 15,185 or 63.5 percent of the increase. Considering components of
population change and annual growth rates, it appears that the population growth dynamics in
Iron County since 1990 have come to more closely resemble those of Washington County.
Of those who lived in Iron County in 2000, 35.3 percent are estimated to have moved to the
county from elsewhere since 1995 (Table 1.2). These are divided nearly equally between out-ofstate and in-state (but out-of-county) origins. Utah, California, Nevada, and Arizona were the
top three states of origin, with Salt Lake, Utah, and Washington counties being the top three
sending counties within the state. About 1.5 percent of the population of Iron County in 2000
reported living outside the U.S. in 1995. Persons who left Iron County between 1995 and 2000
left for elsewhere in Utah, California, Nevada, Arizona, Missouri, and Oregon (the last three
states had nearly equal numbers of out-migrants). All of these had positive net in-migration to
Iron except the last two. (Oregon and Missouri received sizable net out-migration from Iron
County.) Washington, Salt Lake, and Utah counties were the top three in-state destination
counties for those leaving Iron County from 1995 to 2000. The top three counties with net in-
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
5
Exhibit 1.3
Iron County Population Estimates and Components of Population Change,
1940–2007
6
BUREAU
Population
50,000
1.8%
45,000
1.6%
40,000
1.4%
35,000
1.2%
30,000
1.0%
25,000
0.8%
20,000
0.6%
15,000
0.4%
10,000
Population
5,000
0
1940
Share of the State
Net InBirths
Deaths
Increase Migration
223
75
148
0
230
57
173
–273
214
48
166
–366
233
64
169
–569
239
66
173
–373
212
50
162
–362
235
65
170
1,030
313
68
245
255
304
65
239
–239
334
64
270
230
331
78
253
–53
337
64
273
–273
338
80
258
–258
347
57
290
–190
383
65
318
–218
308
64
244
–44
296
61
235
–35
306
56
250
–250
294
72
222
–122
316
70
246
–46
273
71
202
98
281
74
207
93
261
68
193
–193
237
72
165
–665
211
63
148
–248
233
80
153
–53
236
86
150
150
268
83
185
115
241
98
143
157
306
82
224
76
287
76
211
189
351
80
271
729
332
94
238
512
386
108
278
–128
336
81
255
45
403
87
316
134
429
79
350
200
522
101
421
79
502
76
426
224
518
117
401
–1
528
93
435
15
508
109
399
201
460
99
361
139
475
95
380
520
437
80
357
143
498
90
408
–308
435
103
332
–132
412
116
296
–296
403
115
288
–488
418
108
310
–10
409
96
313
197
459
120
339
466
444
108
336
359
451
130
321
1,234
527
142
385
946
582
134
448
1,762
578
150
428
924
621
146
475
921
726
183
543
890
751
172
579
613
771
155
616
584
767
161
606
856
749
171
578
3
773
196
577
860
804
182
622
744
863
198
665
1,807
939
232
707
1,320
959
269
690
699
July 1 Population
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Population
8,400
8,300
8,100
7,700
7,500
7,300
8,500
9,000
9,000
9,500
9,700
9,700
9,700
9,800
9,900
10,100
10,300
10,300
10,400
10,600
10,900
11,200
11,200
10,700
10,600
10,700
11,000
11,300
11,600
11,900
12,300
13,300
14,050
14,200
14,500
14,950
15,500
16,000
16,650
17,050
17,500
18,100
18,600
19,500
20,000
20,100
20,300
20,300
20,100
20,400
20,910
21,715
22,410
23,965
25,296
27,506
28,858
30,254
31,687
32,879
34,079
35,541
36,122
37,559
38,925
41,397
43,424
44,813
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
0.2%
0.0%
2000
2,000
Net In-Migration
Natural Increase
1,500
1,000
500
0
-500
-1,000
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
3,000
10%
8%
2,500
Percent
Amount
6%
2,000
4%
1,500
2%
1,000
0%
500
-2%
0
-4%
-500
-6%
1950
-1,000
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
19, 2007.
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
migration to Iron County were Salt Lake,
Utah, and Davis counties. Washington
County was the only one with significant
net out-migration from Iron County.
According to the Census 2000 data, Iron
County experienced positive net inmigration from 1995 to 2000 on both an instate and out-of-state basis.
Table 1.2
Iron County Migration, 1995–2000
State-to-County
In-State-to-County
In-Flows
Total
10,805
Utah
5,491
California
1,308
Nevada
1,267
Arizona
509
Idaho
319
In-Flows
Total
5,491
Salt Lake
1,193
Utah
901
Washington
819
Davis
317
Millard
259
Beaver County
Out-Flows
Out-Flows
Beaver County remained a small, rural
Total
3,714
Total
7,736
Utah
3,714
Washington
964
county with cumulative net out-migration
California
1,011
Salt
Lake
835
over the twentieth century (Exhibit 1.4).
Nevada
831
Utah
600
The total population of Beaver County was Arizona
241
Cache
153
Missouri
229
Beaver
115
constant at about 5,000 for each census
count from 1910 through 1950, declining
Net
Net
Total
1,777
Total
3,069
subsequently to a low of 3,800 in the 1970
Utah
1,777
Salt
Lake
358
count. Population began a long, slow
Nevada
436
Utah
301
rebound to again surpass 5,000 in the early
California
297
Davis
228
Arizona
268
Millard
162
1990s and reach an historic high of an
Idaho
160
Sevier
141
estimated 6,466 in 2007. During this most
recent growth period (since 1990), Beaver
Source: Census 2000, County-to-County Migration File.
County has averaged an annual growth rate
of 1.7 percent, well below the corresponding state rate of 2.6 percent. Its share of the fivecounty region has fallen from a peak of nearly one-fourth (24.7 percent) in 1910 to 3.2 percent
in 2007.
Table 1.3
Beaver County Migration, 1995–2000
State-to-County
In-State-to-County
In-Flows
Total
1,234
Utah
689
California
199
Nevada
120
Texas
29
Washington
27
In-Flows
Total
Salt Lake
Iron
Utah
Millard
Cache
689
203
115
68
59
46
Out-Flows
Total
1,026
Utah
476
Nevada
199
California
83
Arizona
62
Iowa
37
Out-Flows
Total
Iron
Salt Lake
Tooele
Washington
Sevier
476
133
121
64
55
40
Net
Total
Utah
California
Texas
Idaho
Colorado
Net
208
213
116
29
26
14
Total
Salt Lake
Millard
Cache
Utah
Weber
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
213
82
47
46
40
31
Of the people living in Beaver County in
2000, a little over one-fifth lived elsewhere
in 1995, with a greater share of in-state than
out-of-state origins (Table 1.3). Just over 1
percent of the residents of Beaver County
in 2000 reported having lived outside the
U.S. in 1995. From 1995 to 2000, Beaver
County experienced net in-migration from
other counties in Utah (especially Salt Lake
County), while net migration relative to the
rest of the U.S. was negligible. On a gross
flow basis, Salt Lake and Iron counties were
significant in-state sending counties to
Beaver County, while the top two in-state
counties receiving former residents of
Beaver County were also Iron and Salt
Lake. The flows relative to Iron County
netted out while, as just noted, Salt Lake
was a net exporter of population to Beaver
County in the 1995–2000 period. California
BUSINESS RESEARCH
7
Exhibit 1.4
Beaver County Population Estimates and Components of Population Change,
1940–2007
8
BUREAU
Population
1.0%
7,000
0.9%
6,000
0.8%
5,000
0.7%
0.6%
4,000
0.5%
3,000
0.4%
0.3%
2,000
0.2%
Population
1,000
0.1%
0
1940
Share of the State
Net InBirths
Deaths
Increase Migration
121
55
66
0
139
49
90
110
124
39
85
–585
125
28
97
–797
143
28
115
–15
137
41
96
104
132
50
82
218
170
43
127
–27
157
24
133
–233
133
37
96
4
151
54
97
103
135
36
99
–299
136
34
102
–202
155
30
125
–225
131
35
96
–196
121
34
87
13
123
34
89
–189
114
35
79
–79
120
44
76
–76
104
38
66
–66
97
43
54
–54
87
38
49
–49
81
35
46
–46
78
32
46
–146
72
47
25
–125
72
46
26
–26
59
38
21
–21
70
42
28
–128
77
37
40
–40
78
40
38
–138
68
43
25
–75
114
45
69
–69
86
40
46
–46
92
41
51
–51
95
35
60
40
88
35
53
–103
95
40
55
45
103
43
60
90
101
38
63
–13
123
42
81
69
117
49
68
–18
129
34
95
105
113
45
68
–18
104
43
61
289
112
45
67
83
114
50
64
–164
75
44
31
–131
94
54
40
–90
63
33
30
–130
75
43
32
–32
68
49
19
–37
81
53
28
136
86
43
43
55
87
66
21
107
86
53
33
197
90
45
45
225
119
49
70
116
110
55
55
–43
117
56
61
–226
128
57
71
175
133
58
75
–3
116
45
71
104
120
51
69
18
118
54
64
–64
132
66
66
–43
134
61
73
–40
87
63
24
63
104
67
37
1
July 1 Population
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Population
4,900
5,100
4,600
3,900
4,000
4,200
4,500
4,600
4,500
4,600
4,800
4,600
4,500
4,400
4,300
4,400
4,300
4,300
4,300
4,300
4,300
4,300
4,300
4,200
4,100
4,100
4,100
4,000
4,000
3,900
3,850
3,850
3,850
3,850
3,950
3,900
4,000
4,150
4,200
4,350
4,400
4,600
4,650
5,000
5,150
5,050
4,950
4,900
4,800
4,800
4,782
4,946
5,044
5,172
5,402
5,672
5,858
5,870
5,705
5,951
6,023
6,198
6,285
6,285
6,308
6,341
6,428
6,466
0.0%
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
400
Net In-Migration
300
Natural Increase
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
10%
400
8%
Percent
300
Amount
6%
200
4%
100
2%
0
0%
-100
-2%
-200
-4%
-6%
1950
-300
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
19, 2007.
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
and Nevada sent significant numbers of persons to Beaver County from 1995 to 2000. However,
the migration from Beaver County to Nevada exceeded the incoming flow. More people moved
to Beaver County from California from 1995 to 2000 than the reverse.
Garfield County
The size and change pattern of the Garfield County population in the twentieth century has
been very similar to that of Beaver County (Exhibit 1.5). The 1900 enumeration was 3,400, and
population increased to remain between 4,600 and 5,300 from 1920 through 1940. Like Beaver,
Garfield County population declined to a low in the early 1970s, falling to 3,157. It has
rebounded slowly since then, reaching an historic high of 4,872 in 2007. Garfield County has
been a consistent exporter of population with a very slow rate of growth. Since 1990, it has
averaged a 1.1 percent annual growth rate and is currently estimated to be 2.4 percent of the
five-county region.
In 2000, just over one in five Garfield County residents reported living in a different county in
1995, with a somewhat greater share reporting in-state rather than out-of-state origins. Less than
1 percent of the residents of Garfield
County in 2000 reported living outside the
Table 1.4
Garfield County Migration, 1995–2000
U.S. in 1995. Net migration to Garfield
County from 1995 to 2000 was positive
State-to-County
In-State-to-County
relative to other states but close to zero
In-Flows
In-Flows
considering other counties in Utah (gross
Total
530
Total
948
in- and out-migration were nearly equal)
Utah
530
Salt Lake
114
(Table 1.4). Iron County had the greatest in- Nevada
85
Iron
103
Colorado
78
Utah
54
state net in-migration to Garfield, while a
Montana
47
Washington
35
collection of smaller counties (Grand,
Arizona
34
Grand
24
Wasatch, and Uintah) supplied small
Out-Flows
Out-Flows
numbers of net in-migrants. Colorado and
Total
528
Total
776
Nevada account for most of the net inUtah
528
Iron
150
California
53
Salt Lake
121
migration to Garfield County.
Nevada
Idaho
New York
35
34
20
Washington
Utah
Sevier
45
39
36
Other counties in Utah are by far the largest
source region for movers to Garfield
Net
Net
County from 1995 to 2000, especially Salt
Total
2
Total
172
59
Grand
24
Lake, Iron, Utah, and Washington counties. Colorado
Nevada
50
Wasatch
23
There were an almost equal number of
Montana
29
Uintah
18
Garfield County residents moving from the Wyoming
20
Utah
15
Texas
16
Emery
13
county to elsewhere in the state over the
same period, especially Iron, Salt Lake,
Washington, and Utah counties. On a gross
flow basis, Garfield received population mostly from other counties in Utah, but also from
Nevada, Colorado, and Montana. Gross out-migration from Garfield County (aside from Utah)
was to a wide range of states, but in largest numbers to California, Nevada, and Idaho.
Kane County
Kane has historically had the smallest population of the five-county region, with a population
that remained below 2,500 through 1970. Since then it has been on a new growth path, with
cumulative net in-migration of 2,207 accounting for over half (55.3 percent) of county growth
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
9
Exhibit 1.5
Garfield County Population Estimates and Components of Population Change,
1940–2007
10
BUREAU
Population
6,000
1.2%
5,000
1.0%
4,000
0.8%
3,000
0.6%
2,000
0.4%
1,000
0
1940
0.2%
Population
1950
Share of the State
Net InBirths
Deaths
Increase Migration
153
39
114
0
130
20
110
–410
119
27
92
–292
107
36
71
–571
115
27
88
–488
118
29
89
11
111
34
77
23
177
27
150
–250
151
25
126
–326
130
39
91
109
136
29
107
–7
131
24
107
–207
104
31
73
–273
105
22
83
–183
116
32
84
–184
92
34
58
42
104
35
69
–69
106
40
66
–66
81
27
54
–154
103
40
63
–63
103
19
84
–184
96
38
58
–58
91
21
70
–70
81
28
53
–153
83
28
55
–55
55
36
19
–19
59
37
22
–122
46
26
20
–220
61
28
33
–33
60
25
35
–35
61
37
24
26
68
43
25
–75
75
25
50
–50
64
41
23
–73
59
20
39
11
67
25
42
58
75
18
57
–7
88
26
62
38
93
23
70
–70
85
38
47
53
101
27
74
176
90
38
52
–52
107
35
72
–22
109
26
83
67
91
28
63
–63
93
37
56
44
86
25
61
–61
76
33
43
–43
71
49
22
–72
75
20
55
–5
70
38
32
–62
65
32
33
89
65
51
14
11
61
33
28
82
68
29
39
–22
60
20
40
77
56
36
20
70
78
29
49
103
73
48
25
–58
83
40
43
37
54
44
10
103
66
48
18
–151
71
45
26
–57
66
42
24
–91
68
40
28
65
73
34
39
39
75
35
40
29
72
33
39
61
July 1 Population
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Population
5,300
5,000
4,800
4,300
3,900
4,000
4,100
4,000
3,800
4,000
4,100
4,000
3,800
3,700
3,600
3,700
3,700
3,700
3,600
3,600
3,500
3,500
3,500
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,300
3,100
3,100
3,100
3,150
3,100
3,100
3,050
3,100
3,200
3,250
3,350
3,350
3,450
3,700
3,700
3,750
3,900
3,900
4,000
4,000
4,000
3,950
4,000
3,970
4,092
4,117
4,227
4,244
4,361
4,451
4,603
4,570
4,650
4,763
4,630
4,599
4,532
4,625
4,703
4,772
4,872
1960
1970
0.0%
1980
1990
2000
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
Net In-Migration
-200
Natural Increase
-250
-300
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
8%
300
250
6%
Percent
200
Amount
4%
150
100
2%
50
0%
0
-2%
-50
-100
-4%
-150
-6%
-8%
1950
-200
-250
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
19, 2007.
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
from 1970 to 2007 (Exhibit 1.6). The county added a total of 3,990 persons since 1970 and has
reached a record population, estimated to be 6,440. This surpasses the estimated population of
Garfield County and nearly equals that of Beaver County. Although it is much smaller in
population and has a much slower growth rate, Kane County’s components of population
change have come to somewhat resemble
Table 1.5
those of Washington County while
Kane County Migration, 1995–2000
diverging from the population dynamics of
Beaver and Garfield counties. In contrast to
State-to-County
In-State-to-County
Beaver and Garfield, the majority of Kane
In-Flows
In-Flows
County population growth since 1970 stems
Total
667
Total
1,695
primarily from net in-migration. However,
Utah
667
Salt Lake
201
Arizona
325
Washington
171
the rate of growth has slowed since 1990 to
California
243
Iron
70
an average annual rate of 1.2 percent, and
Colorado
119
Cache
43
the county experienced several years of
Nevada
67
Davis
34
estimated net out-migration. Growth has
Out-Flows
Out-Flows
been reestablished since 2003.
Total
756
Total
1,540
Utah
Arizona
Nevada
California
Montana
756
237
213
100
38
Washington
Iron
Salt Lake
Utah
Cache
227
141
101
85
31
Census 2000 survey results indicate that just
less than one-third of the Kane County
population lived in a different county in
1995 (Table 1.5), a proportion more similar
Net
Net
Total
–89
Total
155
to Washington and Iron counties than to
California
143
Salt Lake
100
Beaver and Garfield. Of these movers, a
Arizona
88
Wasatch
20
somewhat greater proportion originated
Colorado
86
Duchesne
14
New Mexico
28
Davis
12
outside of Utah. About 1 percent of Kane
Pennsylvania
23
Cache
12
County residents in 2000 reported having
lived outside the U.S. in 1995. On a net
basis, Kane County exported population to
elsewhere in Utah and imported population from outside the state. Net in-migration to Kane
was the greatest from California, Arizona, and Colorado, while net out-migration from Kane was
largest to Nevada and other counties in Utah (especially Iron, Washington, and Utah counties).
Although Kane lost population in total through net migration within Utah, it also received net
migration from Salt Lake County. The largest gross in-migration flows were from elsewhere in
Utah (Salt Lake, Washington, and Iron), Arizona, California, and Colorado. The largest gross
out-migration flows were to elsewhere in Utah (particularly Washington, Iron, and Salt Lake
counties), Arizona, Nevada, and California.
Population Changes Within Counties
Early in the twentieth century the cities of Beaver, Cedar City, and St. George were close in
population size, ranging from 1,700 to just over 2,000 in the 1910 census (Exhibits 1.7, 1.9, and
1.11). More recently, the phenomenal growth of Washington County has been concentrated in
St. George, while that of Iron County has been concentrated in Cedar City. In the most recent
city estimates produced by the Bureau of the Census (Table 1.6), over one-third of the
population of the southwest region lives in St. George while Cedar City is estimated to have
about one-seventh of the population. Together, these two cities are home to half the region’s
population. The dramatic divergence in growth among Beaver, Cedar City, and St. George is
clear in the July 1, 2006 population estimates: Beaver was estimated at 2,641, Cedar City at
25,665, and St. George at 67,614.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
11
Exhibit 1.6
Kane County Population Estimates and Components of Population Change,
1940–2007
12
BUREAU
Population
0.5%
7,000
0.5%
6,000
0.4%
5,000
0.4%
0.3%
4,000
0.3%
3,000
0.2%
0.2%
2,000
0.1%
Population
1,000
0.1%
0
1940
Share of the State
Net InBirths
Deaths
Increase Migration
76
16
60
0
65
8
57
–157
59
8
51
–51
54
23
31
–131
56
18
38
–238
57
16
41
–141
67
12
55
145
79
24
55
–55
64
18
46
–246
57
16
41
159
70
10
60
–60
58
19
39
–39
83
15
68
–68
72
21
51
–51
72
17
55
–55
67
15
52
48
72
14
58
–58
78
16
62
38
94
21
73
127
85
29
56
–56
96
22
74
–74
74
24
50
–50
83
22
61
–61
80
20
60
–60
49
16
33
–133
59
14
45
–45
46
16
30
–230
57
14
43
–43
39
18
21
–21
44
19
25
–25
49
26
23
27
62
16
46
304
57
21
36
114
69
28
41
159
68
26
42
58
97
24
73
27
97
25
72
78
98
30
68
182
100
30
70
30
90
28
62
–112
115
30
85
165
84
30
54
–54
98
37
61
89
101
38
63
237
101
18
83
117
81
27
54
196
109
34
75
75
96
29
67
–17
79
41
38
62
96
24
72
–72
94
38
56
–156
91
45
46
66
90
43
47
16
78
36
42
54
70
38
32
206
74
47
27
158
78
44
34
30
92
56
36
38
94
49
45
–15
85
52
33
28
82
56
26
–62
73
69
4
–4
82
46
36
–115
82
41
41
–62
68
51
17
102
104
52
52
103
89
51
38
45
87
78
9
137
July 1 Population
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Population
2,600
2,500
2,500
2,400
2,200
2,100
2,300
2,300
2,100
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,300
2,400
2,400
2,500
2,700
2,700
2,700
2,700
2,700
2,700
2,600
2,600
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
2,450
2,800
2,950
3,150
3,250
3,350
3,500
3,750
3,850
3,800
4,050
4,050
4,200
4,500
4,700
4,950
5,100
5,150
5,250
5,250
5,150
5,262
5,325
5,421
5,659
5,844
5,908
5,982
6,012
6,073
6,037
6,037
5,958
5,937
6,056
6,211
6,294
6,440
0.0%
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
400
Net In-Migration
300
Natural Increase
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
20%
400
Percent
15%
300
Amount
200
10%
100
5%
0
0%
-100
-5%
-10%
1950
-200
-300
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
19, 2007.
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Exhibit 1.7
Populations of Places Within Beaver County, 1900–2000
6,000
Minersville
Unincorporated
Milford
5,000
Beaver
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
1900
1910
Beaver
Milford
Unincorporated Areas
Minersville
1920
1930
1900
1,822
176
1,178
437
1910
2,085
1,014
1,027
591
1940
1920
1,887
1,308
1,269
675
1950
1930
1,675
1,517
1,407
537
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1,808 1,685 1,548 1,453 1,792 1,998 2,454
1,393 1,673 1,471 1,304 1,293 1,107 1,451
1,243
905
732
595
741 1,052 1,283
570
593
580
448
552
608
817
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennial census counts.
Beaver County
Beaver has long been the largest city in Beaver County, with Milford the next closest in size.
Beaver has generally been significantly larger than Milford, although in the 1950 census, the two
population sizes converged, as Beaver was in a period of population decline while Milford was
experiencing some population increase. The only other incorporated place in the county is
Minersville, which has remained significantly smaller than the other two, and has generally had a
lower population than the unincorporated areas of the county. Throughout the 2000s, Beaver
has been home to just over four-in-ten county residents, with an estimated July 1, 2006
population of 2,641, ranking it the tenth largest incorporated place in southwest Utah. In the
2000s Beaver, Minersville, and unincorporated Beaver County have all gained population while
the population of Milford has remained stable.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
13
Exhibit 1.8
Populations of Places Within Garfield County, 1900–2000
6,000
5,000
Panguitch
Unincorporated
Escalante
Tropic
Boulder
Henrieville
Cannonville
Hatch
Antimony
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
1900
1910
1920
Panguitch
Escalante
Tropic
Boulder
Henrieville
Cannonville
Hatch
Antimony
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
883 1,338 1,473 1,541 1,979 1,501 1,435 1,318 1,343 1,444 1,623
928
650
881
738
353
644
286
269
711
738 1,050
723
846 1,032 1,016 1,161
773
702
638
652
818
818
370
358
474
447
514
483
382
329
338
374
508
104
91
177
192
216
108
93
113
126
180
181
158
170
207
241
114
152
145
167
163
159
211
219
311
227
250
205
153
113
134
131
148
250
274
294
244
198
139
121
103
127
245
187
161
113
94
83
122
Garfield County
Panguich has maintained the largest population in Garfield County, most recently estimated at
1,485 or one-third of the county population in 2006. Unincorporated Garfield County gained
significant population in the 1970s and 1990s, and is currently (July 1, 2006) estimated to have
1,007 persons, or just over one-fifth (22 percent) of the county population. Escalante is the next
largest place, with an estimated July 1, 2006 population of 750. Bryce Canyon City recently
incorporated, with an estimated population of 138.
14
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Exhibit 1.9
Populations of Places Within Iron County, 1900–2000
35,000
Brian Head
30,000
Kanarraville
Paragonah
25,000
Parow an
Enoch
Unincorporated
20,000
Cedar City
15,000
10,000
5,000
1900
1910
Cedar City
Enoch
Parowan
Paragonah
Kanarraville
Brian Head
1920
1930
1940
1950
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940
1,325 1,705 2,462 3,615 4,695
599
424 1,236 1,754 1,245
192
1,039 1,156 1,640 1,474 1,525
358
399
449
384
365
225
249
309
1960
1950
6,106
1,414
1960
7,543
1,230
1,455
404
263
1,486
300
236
1970
1980
1990
2000
1970
1980
1990
2000
8,946 10,972 13,443 20,527
1,209
3,221
2,882
6,321
120
678
1,947
3,467
1,423
1,836
1,873
2,565
275
310
307
470
204
255
228
311
77
109
118
Iron County
Cedar City was the largest city in the southwest region into the 1970s. It has continued to be the
population center of Iron County, with an estimated July 1, 2006 population of 25,665, which is
nearly two-thirds of the county population. Unincorporated areas of the county have a
population of 6,893 (also in 2006), followed by Enoch, with an estimated population of 4,550.
Since 2000, Cedar City and Enoch have gained shares of the total county population.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
15
Exhibit 1.10
Populations of Places Within Kane County, 1900–2000
6,000
Alton
Glendale
5,000
Big Water
Orderville
4,000
Unincorporated
Kanab
3,000
2,000
1,000
1900
1910
1920
Kanab
Orderville
Big Water
Glendale
Alton
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
710
733 1,102 1,195 1,397 1,287 1,645 1,381 2,148 3,289 3,564
258
197
155
169
187
261
285
379
987
757
980
418
380
378
439
441
371
398
399
423
422
596
154
326
417
319
244
250
239
297
226
223
200
237
282
355
106
98
169
193
239
154
116
62
75
93
134
Kane County
Kanab has long been the population center of Kane County, followed by unincorporated areas,
Orderville, and Big Water. Much of the recent growth in the county’s population has been
accommodated in Kanab, as it added 2,183 persons, increasing from a population of 1,381 in
1970 to 3,564 in 2000 (increasing by a factor of 2.5). In relative terms, the unincorporated
portion of the county has been growing at the most rapid rate since 2000, and is estimated to
have a population of 1,269 in 2006, or almost one-fifth of the county.
Washington County
By the 1980 census, St. George had surpassed Cedar City in population, and it has remained the
most populous city since. St. George accounted for 56 percent of Washington County’s
population growth over the entire twentieth century. According to the most recent postcensal
estimates produced by the Bureau of the Census, St. George has accommodated half the total
county growth since 2000. Since the 1990 census, St. George has lost share of the county
16
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Exhibit 1.11
Populations of Places Within Washington County, 1900–2000
100,000
New Harmony
Rockville
Virgin
Springdale
Leeds
Toquerville
Enterprise
Hilldale
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
LaVerkin
Ivins
Santa Clara
Unicorporated Areas
Washington
Hurricane
St. George
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
1900
1910
St. George
Hurricane
Washington
Santa Clara
Ivins
LaVerkin
Hilldale
Enterprise
Toquerville
Leeds
Springdale
Virgin
Rockville
New Harmony
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950
1,600 1,737 2,215 2,434 3,591 4,562
336 1,021 1,197 1,524 1,271
529
424
464
435
507
435
1,006
921
812 1,009
820 1,485
358
390
305
249
283
319
83
95
120
173
236
349
387
100
144
248
144
269
214
350
186
148
186
136
189
608
331
211
204
212
208
548
288
220
351
202
251
677
263
268
454
143
307
790
219
1970
1960
5,130
1,251
445
1,070
291
77
365
147
859
197
109
248
124
126
105
1980
1990
2000
1970
1980
1990
2000
7,097 13,146 28,502 49,663
1,408
2,660
3,915
8,250
750
3,092
4,198
8,186
1,504
1,193
2,432
5,858
271
1,091
2,322
4,630
137
600
1,630
4,450
463
1,174
1,771
3,392
480
1,009
1,325
1,895
844
905
936
1,285
185
277
488
910
151
218
254
547
182
258
275
457
119
169
229
394
156
182
247
78
117
101
190
population to other places, especially Hurricane, Washington, and Ivins. According to the
Bureau of the Census, the largest places in Washington County on July 1, 2006 were St. George
(67,614), Washington (15,217), and Hurricane (12,284). This means that Washington and
Hurricane are the third and fourth largest cities in the five-county region.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
17
Table 1.6
Population Estimates for Places in Southwestern Utah, 2000–2006
(July 1 Populations)
Beaver County
Beaver
Milford
Minersville
Balance of County
Beaver County
2000
2,483
1,451
819
1,265
6,018
2001
2,485
1,439
820
1,282
6,026
2002
2,524
1,447
828
1,301
6,100
2003
2,520
1,428
821
1,300
6,069
2004
2,540
1,416
820
1,310
6,086
2005
2,582
1,437
837
1,346
6,202
2000–06 Change
Rank
2006 Amount Percent 2000 2006
2,631
148
6.0%
11
10
1,441
–10
–0.7%
14
15
848
29
3.5%
17
17
1,374
109
8.6%
6,294
276
4.6%
Garfield County
Antimony
Boulder
Bryce Canyon City
Cannonville
Escalante
Hatch
Henrieville
Panguitch
Tropic
Balance of County
Garfield County
2000
122
181
N/A
148
819
127
159
1,626
509
1,059
4,750
2001
120
179
N/A
146
805
125
156
1,592
500
1,068
4,691
2002
117
181
N/A
142
784
121
152
1,553
488
1,068
4,606
2003
115
179
N/A
139
767
119
149
1,518
477
1,072
4,535
2004
112
175
N/A
135
747
116
145
1,481
465
1,073
4,449
2005
111
178
N/A
134
739
114
143
1,469
460
1,095
4,443
112
–10
–8.2%
35
38
178
–3
–1.7%
30
31
138
N/A
N/A
N/A
34
136
–12
–8.1%
32
35
750
–69
–8.4%
17
18
116
–11
–8.7%
34
37
145
–14
–8.8%
31
32
1,485
–141
–8.7%
13
14
467
–42
–8.3%
21
24
1,007
–52
–4.9%
4,534
–216
–4.5%
Iron County
Brian Head
Cedar City
Enoch
Kanarraville
Paragonah
Parowan
Balance of County
Iron County
2000
118
20,670
3,527
310
470
2,575
6,302
33,972
2001
116
21,036
3,682
305
467
2,559
6,405
34,570
2002
117
21,524
3,834
307
469
2,570
6,522
35,343
2003
114
21,877
3,866
303
462
2,533
6,513
35,668
2004
115
22,379
3,965
305
466
2,553
6,655
36,438
2005
116
24,086
4,185
304
464
2,543
6,740
38,438
117
–1
–0.8%
36
36
25,665
4,995
24.2%
2
2
4,550
1,023
29.0%
8
7
305
–5
–1.6%
27
28
465
–5
–1.1%
22
25
2,549
–26
–1.0%
10
11
6,893
591
9.4%
40,544
6,572
19.3%
Kane County
Alton
Big Water
Glendale
Kanab
Orderville
Balance of County
Kane County
2000
135
420
357
3,580
600
987
6,079
2001
133
414
346
3,480
587
995
5,955
2002
135
417
346
3,506
598
1,032
6,034
2003
134
419
347
3,492
599
1,080
6,071
2004
137
413
344
3,495
591
1,134
6,114
2005
139
417
343
3,539
590
1,204
6,232
140
5
3.7%
33
33
413
–7
–1.7%
24
26
350
–7
–2.0%
26
27
3,754
174
4.9%
7
9
606
6
1.0%
20
20
1,269
282
28.6%
6,532
453
7.5%
2000
N/A
1,285
1,896
8,346
4,698
3,405
649
190
248
4,677
458
50,142
912
398
8,316
5,624
91,244
2001
N/A
1,281
1,893
8,709
5,165
3,520
657
189
252
4,850
470
51,645
918
414
8,812
5,834
94,609
Washington County
Apple Valley
Enterprise
Hildale
Hurricane
Ivins
La Verkin
Leeds
New Harmony
Rockville
Santa Clara
Springdale
St. George
Toquerville
Virgin
Washington
Balance of County
Washington County
2002
2003
2004
2005
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
582
N/A
N/A
N/A
21
1,294
1,405
1,410
1,423
1,489
204
15.9%
15
13
1,914
1,928
1,988
1,977
1,950
54
2.8%
12
12
9,113
9,458
9,797
11,017
12,084
3,738
44.8%
3
4
5,663
6,169
6,426
6,756
7,205
2,507
53.4%
5
5
3,665
3,743
3,864
4,115
4,142
737
21.6%
9
8
669
677
680
696
720
71
10.9%
19
19
191
192
195
196
193
3
1.6%
29
30
258
261
260
259
257
9
3.6%
28
29
5,096
5,377
5,690
5,879
6,280
1,603
34.3%
6
6
491
510
521
537
551
93
20.3%
23
22
54,124
56,556
60,108
64,365
67,614
17,472
34.8%
1
1
951
999
1,051
1,121
1,215
303
33.2%
16
16
432
450
475
494
508
110
27.6%
25
23
9,677
10,520
11,579
13,704
15,217
6,901
83.0%
4
3
6,071
6,263
6,432
6,649
6,305
681
12.1%
99,609 104,508 110,476 119,188 126,312
35,068
38.4%
Note: The Utah Population Estimates Committee produced 2006 estimates for Apple Valley and Bryce Canyon City.
Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, SUB-EST2006-04-49.
18
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Population Composition: Age, Sex, Race, Ethnicity
Just as the population growth paths of the five southwestern Utah counties have diverged,
particularly since 1970, so also have the age distributions. Beaver and Garfield counties continue
to have classic rural age distributions with under-representation in the young working-age
groups. Iron County’s age composition is dominated by the college-age population at Southern
Utah University. Washington County’s population is older, with an overrepresentation in all fiveyear age groups greater than 55 years old (the U.S. post-WWII Baby Boom and older). The age
distribution of Kane County is a combination of the classic rural age structure and increasing
retirement in-migration. All five counties have smaller minority shares than the state as a whole,
with Hispanics being the largest minority group for each. The characteristics are explored in
more detail below by focusing on the distribution of population by sex and five-year age groups
as well as the minority composition. The decennial census data for 2000 for each of the five
counties is also compared with that of the state as a whole.
Beaver County
The age structure of Beaver County is one that is common to many rural communities (Exhibit
1.12). There are fewer persons in the ages after high school graduation and through the young
prime working ages, as compared with the state. This is consistent with out-migration from
Beaver County for educational and economic opportunities. As a result, there are more young
persons (under age 18) and more retirement-age persons (65 years and older) per capita than in
the state as a whole. In the 2000 enumeration, the median age was 30.8, which was higher than
the state’s median age of 27.1. The share of the county population 60 years and older was 17.1
percent, as compared with 11.3 percent for the state. The male-to-female ratio was particularly
high for age groups 30–34 and 35–39, probably an indication of the correctional facility
population. A drop in the male-to-female ratio in the 15–19 and 20–24-year-old age groups is
evidence of males having left the county, probably for reasons of religious service. Working-age
persons (18–64 years old) were about 53 percent of the population, meaning there was one nonworking-age person per working-age person in the county. One-third of the population was less
than 18 while 14 percent was 65 years or older.
The 514 minority persons enumerated in the 2000 census were 8.6 percent of the Beaver County
population, quite close to the shares in Iron and Washington counties. This is just over half the
minority share in the state population (14.7 percent) in 2000. Nearly two-thirds of minorities in
Beaver County were Hispanic in 2000, with 333 Hispanics enumerated, up from 120 in 1990.9
Of those Hispanics residing in Beaver County in 2000, nearly two-thirds were estimated to be
foreign-born. Of these foreign born, most (87 percent) were born in Mexico, and the majority of
these Mexicans have come to the U.S. since 1990. Male Hispanics in Beaver County are
employed in agriculture while female Hispanics are employed in hospitality and agriculture.10
Garfield County
The age structure of Garfield County, as measured by Census 2000, is very similar to that of
Beaver County (Exhibit 1.13). The same age-specific out-migration created an underrepresentation of young, working-age persons. The median age was 33.8, with nearly one in five
(19 percent) residents at least 60 years old. Working-age persons were just over half the
9 Pamela S. Perlich (2002). Utah Minorities: The Story Told by 150 Years of Census Data. Bureau of Economic and
Business Research, University of Utah, page 17.
10 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, SF3: QT-P14, SF4: PCT48 and PCT85.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
19
Exhibit 1.12
Beaver County Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000
Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex
Minority Population Composition
85 +
80 - 84
Blac k alone
(NH)
3.1%
75 - 79
70 - 74
AIAN alone
(NH)
10.3%
65 - 69
Asian alone
(NH)
6.8%
60 - 64
NHPI alone
(NH)
1.0%
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40 - 44
Some other
rac e alone
(NH)
0.0%
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
Two or more
rac es (NH)
14.0%
Hispanic
64.8%
15 - 19
10 - 14
5-9
Under 5
300
200
100
Male
0
100
200
Age Distribution of the Beaver County
Population
Sex
Share of
Male Female Ratio Share State
Under 5
298
260 1.15 9.3%
0.3%
5–9
282
269 1.05 9.2%
0.3%
10–14
292
265 1.10 9.3%
0.3%
15–19
254
258 0.98 8.5%
0.2%
20–24
222
174 1.28 6.6%
0.2%
25–29
189
180 1.05 6.1%
0.2%
30–34
180
141 1.28 5.3%
0.2%
35–39
204
166 1.23 6.2%
0.2%
40–44
194
189 1.03 6.4%
0.3%
45–49
213
180 1.18 6.5%
0.3%
50–54
150
161 0.93 5.2%
0.3%
55–59
135
122 1.11 4.3%
0.3%
60–64
101
91 1.11 3.2%
0.3%
65–69
108
119 0.91 3.8%
0.4%
70–74
102
101 1.01 3.4%
0.4%
75–79
78
72 1.08 2.5%
0.4%
80–84
60
94 0.64 2.6%
0.6%
85 +
28
73 0.38 1.7%
0.5%
Total
3,090 2,915 1.06 100%
0.3%
Share 60 years+ 17.1%
0.4%
Median Age
30.8
20
300
Female
Race and Ethnicity of the Beaver County Population
Total
Not Hispanic or Latino
White alone
Black or African American alone
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone
Some other race alone
Two or more races
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Minority
Population Share
6,005 100%
Share of
State
0.3%
5,672 94.5%
5,491 91.4%
16
0.3%
53
0.9%
35
0.6%
5
0.1%
0
0.0%
72
1.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
333
5.5%
0.2%
514
8.6%
0.2%
Note: NH is Not Hispanic. If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates
that the county’s share of the state for the given category exceeds the county’s share of
total population in the state. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than
one.
Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, SF1.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Exhibit 1.13
Garfield County Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000
85 +
80 - 84
Blac k alone
(NH)
2.7%
75 - 79
70 - 74
65 - 69
AIAN alone
(NH)
25.1%
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40 - 44
Hispanic
46.1%
35 - 39
Asian alone
(NH)
6.1%
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
15 - 19
10 - 14
5-9
Under 5
300
200
100
Male
0
100
200
Female
Age Distribution of the Garfield County
Population
Sex
Share of
Under 5
212
193 1.10 8.6%
0.2%
5–9
201
195 1.03 8.4%
0.2%
10–14
212
206 1.03 8.8%
0.2%
15–19
266
189 1.41 9.6%
0.2%
20–24
125
113 1.11 5.0%
0.1%
25–29
133
137 0.97 5.7%
0.2%
30–34
134
101 1.33 5.0%
0.2%
35–39
144
139 1.04 6.0%
0.2%
40–44
148
160 0.93 6.5%
0.2%
45–49
184
156 1.18 7.2%
0.3%
50–54
150
162 0.93 6.6%
0.3%
55–59
103
92 1.12 4.1%
0.2%
60–64
108
105 1.03 4.5%
0.3%
65–69
106
107 0.99 4.5%
0.4%
70–74
74
90 0.82 3.5%
0.3%
75–79
64
76 0.84 3.0%
0.4%
80–84
29
53 0.55 1.7%
0.3%
85 +
28
40 0.70 1.4%
0.3%
Total
2,421 2,314 1.05 100%
0.2%
0.3%
Median Age
33.8
BUREAU
OF
Two or more
rac es (NH)
17.6%
300
ECONOMIC
AND
NHPI alone
(NH)
0.7%
Some other
rac e alone
(NH)
1.7%
Race and Ethnicity of the Garfield County Population
Total
White alone
Asian alone
Two or more races
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Minority
Population Share
4,735 100%
Share of
State
0.2%
4,599 97.1%
4,440 93.8%
8 0.2%
74 1.6%
18 0.4%
2 0.0%
5 0.1%
52 1.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.2%
136
2.9%
0.1%
295
6.2%
0.1%
one.
BUSINESS RESEARCH
21
population (53 percent). About one in three residents was younger than 18, and about one in
seven (14 percent) was at least 65 years old. The male-to-female ratio was unusually high for two
five-year age groups: 15–19 and 30–34. These were possibly the populations at the correctional
facility and those working at the national park (Bryce) or its support industries (Ruby’s Inn, etc.).
At 6.2 percent of the 2000 population, minorities were a smaller share of the Garfield population
than in Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties. Hispanics were the largest minority population
in all counties of southwest Utah. However, they were less than half (46 percent) of all
minorities in Garfield County, with Native Americans composing one-fourth of the minority
population. Specific tribal association is not reported in the 2000 census because the native
populations are smaller than the reporting thresholds. Less than 1 percent (39 persons) of the
Garfield County population is estimated to be foreign born.
Iron County
Iron County has a classic college community age distribution, with “wings” in the college-age
groups (15–19 and 20–24) (Exhibit 1.14). Census 2000 estimated enrollment of 5,249 individuals
in college and graduate school in the county. In contrast to Beaver and Garfield counties, which
experienced an exodus of persons in the college-age groups, Iron County imports people in large
numbers. The median age was 24.2, among the youngest in the state. There was also a
“missionary cave” on the male side of the age pyramid in the peak LDS religious service years
(i.e., women particularly outnumber men in those ages). The beginnings of a retirement
destination community were also evident in the slight overrepresentation of population in the
60–64, 65–69, and 70–74-year age groups (relative to the state). Because of the presence of
college-age persons, the working-age population (18–64 years old) was 60 percent of the
population, while youth (under age 18) were 31 percent and those over 65 were 9 percent of the
total.
Nearly 3,000 minorities were enumerated in the 2000 Iron County population, representing
almost 9 percent of the total. Hispanics were the largest minority population in the county,
accounting for nearly half of all minorities. There were 692 American Indians counted,
representing almost one-fourth of the Iron County population. Their numbers were only slightly
larger than in 1990. The Hispanic population increased by 1,000 (from 382 to 1,383) from 1990
to 2000, while the Asian (not Hispanic) population increased from 98 to 249. The foreign-born
population was estimated to be only 981 persons in 2000, 438 of whom were born in Latin
America (and had migrated since 1990), 234 in Asia (migrated since 1990), and 182 from Europe
(most immigrating before 1980). The growth of Southern Utah University and of the area’s labor
market in general is probably encouraging the in-migration of these diverse populations.
Kane County
Kane County’s age distribution is a hybrid of the classic rural distribution (e.g., Beaver and
Garfield) and the retirement-destination county (e.g., Washington County) (Exhibit 1.15). Outmigration of young adults is evident in the sharp decline in the number of persons in the 20–24,
25–29, and 30–34-year-old age groups as compared with the 10–14 and 15–19 age groups. The
beginnings of a retirement-age migration to Kane County appear in the overrepresentation of
those 60–64 years old in the county population. In 2000, the median age was 39.1, the oldest
among the counties of southwest Utah, with 22 percent of the population at least 60 years old.
Youth (those under 18) were 29 percent of the population, while working-age persons were 54
percent of the population.
22
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Exhibit 1.14
Iron County Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000
85 +
80 - 84
Blac k alone
(NH)
3.7%
75 - 79
70 - 74
65 - 69
AIAN alone
(NH)
23.5%
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40 - 44
Hispanic
46.9%
35 - 39
Asian alone
(NH)
8.4%
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
NHPI alone
(NH)
3.0%
15 - 19
10 - 14
5-9
Two or more
races (NH)
13.3%
Under 5
3,000
2,000
1,000
Male
0
1,000
2,000
Female
Age Distribution of the Iron County
Population
Sex
Share
Male Female Ratio Share of State
Under 5
1,653 1,513 1.09 9.4%
1.5%
5–9
1,446 1,346 1.07 8.3%
1.4%
10–14
1,447 1,326 1.09 8.2%
1.4%
15–19
1,759 2,092 0.84 11.4%
1.8%
20–24
2,372 2,547 0.93 14.6%
2.2%
25–29
1,322 1,107 1.19 7.2%
1.4%
30–34
882
908 0.97 5.3%
1.2%
35–39
915
885 1.03 5.3%
1.2%
40–44
955
981 0.97 5.7%
1.3%
45–49
912
904 1.01 5.4%
1.4%
50–54
719
731 0.98 4.3%
1.4%
55–59
572
627 0.91 3.5%
1.5%
60–64
487
480 1.01 2.9%
1.5%
65–69
441
447 0.99 2.6%
1.7%
70–74
349
397 0.88 2.2%
1.6%
75–79
259
293 0.88 1.6%
1.4%
80–84
164
225 0.73 1.2%
1.4%
85 +
103
213 0.48 0.9%
1.5%
Total
16,757 17,022 0.98 100%
1.5%
1.5%
Median Age
24.2
BUREAU
OF
3,000
ECONOMIC
AND
Some other
rac e alone
(NH)
1.3%
Race and Ethnicity of the Iron County Population
Total
White alone
Asian alone
Two or more races
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Minority
Population Share
33,779 100%
Share of
State
1.5%
32,396 95.9%
30,829 91.3%
108 0.3%
692 2.0%
249 0.7%
88 0.3%
38 0.1%
392 1.2%
1.6%
1.6%
0.7%
2.6%
0.7%
0.6%
2.0%
1.3%
1,383
4.1%
0.7%
2,950
8.7%
0.9%
one.
BUSINESS RESEARCH
23
Exhibit 1.15
Kane County Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000
85 +
Blac k alone
(NH)
0.6%
80 - 84
75 - 79
70 - 74
65 - 69
AIAN alone
(NH)
28.0%
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
Hispanic
43.5%
40 - 44
Asian alone
(NH)
4.0%
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
NHPI alone
(NH)
0.6%
20 - 24
15 - 19
10 - 14
5-9
Under 5
400
300
200
100
Male
0
100
200
400
Some other
race alone
(NH)
1.2%
Female
Age Distribution of the Kane County
Population
Sex
Share of
Under 5
204
195 1.05 6.6%
0.2%
5–9
245
212 1.16 7.6%
0.2%
10–14
285
284 1.00 9.4%
0.3%
15–19
284
227 1.25 8.5%
0.2%
20–24
119
133 0.89 4.2%
0.1%
25–29
138
142 0.97 4.6%
0.2%
30–34
121
141 0.86 4.3%
0.2%
35–39
167
184 0.91 5.8%
0.2%
40–44
194
194 1.00 6.4%
0.3%
45–49
244
243 1.00 8.1%
0.4%
50–54
205
202 1.01 6.7%
0.4%
55–59
150
207 0.72 5.9%
0.4%
60–64
157
159 0.99 5.2%
0.5%
65–69
165
136 1.21 5.0%
0.6%
70–74
135
128 1.05 4.3%
0.6%
75–79
83
115 0.72 3.3%
0.5%
80–84
71
79 0.90 2.5%
0.6%
85 +
30
68 0.44 1.6%
0.5%
Total
2,997 3,049 0.98 100%
0.3%
0.5%
Median Age
39.1
24
300
Two or more
rac es (NH)
22.0%
Race and Ethnicity of the Kane County Population
Total
White alone
Asian alone
Two or more races
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Minority
Population Share
6,046 100%
Share of
State
0.3%
5,906 97.7%
5,724 94.7%
2 0.0%
90 1.5%
13 0.2%
2 0.0%
4 0.1%
71 1.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
140
2.3%
0.1%
322
5.3%
0.1%
one.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Like Garfield, Kane County’s minority population is very small in both number and share. In the
2000 census, 322 minorities were counted. Of these, 140 were Hispanic and 90 were American
Indian (not Hispanic). Persons born in Europe were the largest immigrant group, most having
immigrated prior to 1980.
Washington County
The age distribution of Washington County is most distinctive because of the overrepresentation
of older age groups, with a greater share of its population in each five-year age group beginning
with 55–59 (Exhibit 1.16). Washington County has a very high net migration rate of those 65
years and older.11 Median age in 2000 was 31 and about one-fifth (21 percent) of the population
was at least 60 years old, roughly double the state rate. Although the county does not have a
classic rural age distribution, the number and share of 20–24-year-olds are lower than would be
the case with the state distribution. However, there has been adequate job creation to attract and
keep many of the young working-age persons in the county, certainly more so than in Beaver,
Garfield, and Kane counties. Just over half (52 percent) of the population is of working age,
while 31 percent is less than 18 and 17 percent is 65 and over. The decline in the sex ratio in the
15–19 age group is probably due to religious missions of young men.
The minority population in Washington County increased to 8,061 in the 2000 census, up from
1,895 in 1990. The minority share of the population increase from 3.9 percent in 1990 to 6.8
percent in 2000. This means that 6,166 of the 41,794 increase in the population of Washington
County from 1990 to 2000 were minorities. This is 15 percent of the population growth. The
largest minority population is Hispanic, which increased from 862 to 4,727 from 1990 to 2000.
This accounts for 3,865 (almost two-thirds) of the 6,166 increase in minority population over
this period. According to estimates from the 2000 census, nearly one-half (2,060 of 4,272) of the
Hispanics in Washington County are foreign born.12 The age distribution of this population is
very similar to that of the state’s Hispanic population, concentrated in prime young working ages
and with a pronounced male asymmetry. Evidence of the relatively high fertility rate of
Hispanics is the large number of persons in the youngest age group. Hispanic males in
Washington County work in the greatest numbers in construction, manufacturing, retail trade
(especially building materials and lawn/garden stores), support and waste management services,
and accommodation and food services. Female Hispanics work in largest numbers in
accommodation and food services and health care.13 Hispanics have migrated to Washington
County for economic opportunity, not retirement living. The second largest minority group is
American Indian (not Hispanic), with a count of 1,229 in 2000.
If all minorities are removed from the data, the age and sex distribution of white, non-Hispanics
in Washington County is much more similar to that of Beaver, Garfield, and Kane counties. The
reduction in the size of the 20–24-year-old age group relative to the 15–19 age group is larger,
the median age is higher, and the share of the population 60 years and older is larger. Retirement
in-migrants are disproportionately white and not Hispanic.
Wan He and Jason P. Schatcher (2003) Internal Migration of the Older Population: 1995 to 2000, CENSR-10, U.S.
Bureau of the Census.
12 Census 2000, SF4, PCT48.
13 Census 2000, SF4, PCT85.
11
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
25
Exhibit 1.16
Washington County Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000
85 +
Blac k alone
(NH)
2.2%
80 - 84
75 - 79
70 - 74
65 - 69
AIAN alone
(NH)
15.2%
60 - 64
Asian alone
(NH)
4.8%
55 - 59
50 - 54
NHPI alone
(NH)
4.7%
45 - 49
40 - 44
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
Some other
rac e alone
(NH)
1.1%
Hispanic
58.6%
20 - 24
15 - 19
10 - 14
5-9
Two or more
rac es (NH)
13.3%
Under 5
4,500
2,500
500
Male
1,500
Age Distribution of the Washington County
Population
Sex
Share of
Under 5
4,260 3,969 1.07 9.1%
3.9%
5–9
3,800 3,613 1.05 8.2%
3.8%
10–14
3,865 3,817 1.01 8.5%
4.0%
15–19
4,192 4,406 0.95 9.5%
4.0%
20–24
3,464 3,291 1.05 7.5%
3.0%
25–29
2,780 2,640 1.05 6.0%
3.0%
30–34
2,446 2,336 1.05 5.3%
3.2%
35–39
2,449 2,508 0.98 5.5%
3.3%
40–44
2,476 2,586 0.96 5.6%
3.4%
45–49
2,168 2,351 0.92 5.0%
3.4%
50–54
1,993 2,120 0.94 4.6%
3.9%
55–59
1,694 1,960 0.86 4.0%
4.6%
60–64
1,716 2,111 0.81 4.2%
6.1%
65–69
2,073 2,143 0.97 4.7%
7.8%
70–74
1,958 2,081 0.94 4.5%
8.4%
75–79
1,611 1,783 0.90 3.8%
8.5%
80–84
1,034 1,134 0.91 2.4%
8.0%
85 +
582
944 0.62 1.7%
7.0%
Total
44,561 45,793 0.97 100%
4.0%
7.6%
Median Age
31.0
26
3,500
Female
Total
Race and Ethnicity of the Washington County Population
Share of
State
Population Share
90,354 100%
4.0%
White alone
Asian alone
Two or more races
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Minority
85,627 94.8%
82,293 91.1%
174 0.2%
1,229 1.4%
389 0.4%
379 0.4%
87 0.1%
1,076 1.2%
4.2%
4.3%
1.1%
4.6%
1.1%
2.6%
4.5%
3.4%
4,727
5.2%
2.3%
8,061
8.9%
2.5%
one.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Households: Number and Size
All counties in the region saw increases in the number of households from 1970 to 2007, from
82.5 percent in Beaver to 1191.2 percent in Washington (Table 1.7). The number of households
in the state as a whole grew 192.3 percent. All counties also saw average household size decline,
from a 9.8 percent reduction in Beaver to 23.8 percent in Kane. In 1970, the average household
size in all counties was over three persons per household, ranging from 3.18 in Beaver County to
3.44 in Washington County. The statewide average was 3.46. By 2007, household size had fallen
below 3.00 in all counties except Iron, where it was 3.07. Kane had the smallest average
household at 2.57 persons, close to the estimated national average of 2.54. Statewide, household
size fell 12.0 percent over the period to 3.05.
Table 1.7
Number and Size of Households, 1970–2007
1970
Beaver
Households
Household Size
Garfield
Households
Household Size
Iron
Households
Household Size
Kane
Households
Household Size
Washington
Households
Household Size
State
Households
Household Size
1980
1990
2000
2007
Change AAGR
1,191
3.18
1,428
3.06
1,594
2.95
1,982
2.93
2,173
2.87
82.5% 1.6%
–9.8% –0.3%
923
3.42
1,196
3.00
1,321
3.00
1,576
2.92
1,723
2.74
86.7% 1.7%
–19.8% –0.6%
3,378
3.42
5,168
3.28
6,269
3.21
10,627
3.11
14,302
3.07
323.4% 4.0%
–10.2% –0.3%
718
3.37
1,286
3.12
1,724
2.98
2,237
2.67
2,479
2.57
245.3% 3.4%
–23.8% –0.7%
3,834
3.44
7,801
3.28
15,256
3.14
29,939
2.97
49,504 1191.2% 7.2%
2.80 –18.7% –0.6%
297,934 448,603 537,273 701,281 870,892
3.46
3.20
3.15
3.13
3.05
192.3% 2.9%
–12.0% –0.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau decennial censuses and Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2008
Baseline Projections.
Income and Poverty
The decennial censuses report median household income and per capita income for the
preceding year. The 1970 census reported median household income only at the national level
and not at the state or county level. Per capita incomes in Utah tend to be lower than the
national average because of the state’s relatively high fertility rates. Because there are more
children, who don’t earn income, per adult earner, the per capita income numbers are lower.
Household income is therefore a more comparable figure that allows for differences in fertility
rates and the resulting household/family sizes.
In order to facilitate the comparison of incomes over time (Table 1.8), BEBR converted all
amounts to constant 2007 dollars. In 1969, the highest per capita incomes in the region were in
Garfield ($13,960) and Kane ($13,954). Washington had the lowest at $12,288. The average for
the state was $15,801, while the national average was $17,578 per capita. Poverty rates, the share
of persons living below the poverty level, were fairly high in the region. They ranged from a low
of 12.4 percent in Kane County to a high of 19.0 percent, almost one in five people, in Beaver
County. Statewide, the rate was 11.4 percent, below the national rate of 12.1 percent.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
27
Table 1.8
Income and Poverty, 1969–1999
(constant 2007 dollars)
Beaver
Garfield
Iron
Kane
Washington
State
U.S.
1969
Median Household Income
Per Capita Income
Share of Persons Below the Poverty Level
na
$13,609
19.0%
na
$13,960
16.1%
na
$13,299
13.1%
na
$13,954
12.4%
na
na
$49,040
$12,288 $15,801 $17,578
18.8%
11.4%
12.1%
1979
Per Capita Income
$37,281
$14,345
14.3%
$36,138
$14,524
12.0%
$42,297
$15,076
14.5%
$35,788
$13,235
17.3%
$39,479 $51,650 $48,113
$14,231 $18,429 $20,951
15.8%
10.3%
11.7%
1989
Per Capita Income
$35,921
$14,575
13.4%
$36,037
$14,047
14.8%
$39,485
$14,542
16.8%
$35,992
$14,852
16.3%
$41,898 $50,189 $49,228
$16,094 $18,783 $23,938
13.3%
11.4%
12.8%
1999
Per Capita Income
$43,400
$18,791
8.3%
$44,199
$16,884
8.1%
$41,603
$17,046
19.2%
$43,027
$19,417
7.9%
$46,752 $57,449 $51,129
$19,942 $22,847 $26,684
11.2%
9.4%
11.9%
Change, 1969–99
Median Household Income (1979–99)
Per Capita Income
Poverty Rate Percent Change
Poverty Rate Absolute Change
16.4%
38.1%
–56.3%
–10.7%
22.3%
21.0%
–49.7%
–8.0%
–1.6%
28.2%
46.6%
6.1%
20.2%
39.2%
–36.3%
–4.5%
18.4%
62.3%
–40.4%
–7.6%
11.2%
44.6%
–17.5%
–2.0%
6.3%
51.8%
–1.7%
–0.2%
Note: The 1970 Census did not report household income data at the state or county level.
Source: US Census Bureau decennial censuses.
Median household incomes were first reported at the state and county level in the 1980 census.
Utah was above the nation, with a median household income in 1979 of $51,650 vs. $48,113, but
the state’s per capita income remained below that of the nation. Median household incomes in
the five counties of the southwest were below the state median. The highest was in Iron County,
with $42,297, followed by Washington County at $39,479. Kane County had the lowest at
$35,788. Per capita incomes increased over 1969 in every county except Kane, where it fell to
$13,235. Poverty rates declined in three of the counties from their 1969 levels, but increased in
Iron and Kane.
From 1979 to 1989, median household income fell in three of the five southwest counties, rising
only in Kane and Washington. All remained below the state median, which was above the
national median. Statewide, household income also declined from 1979, though nationally it
increased by about $1,000. Per capita income fell only in Garfield and Iron counties, rising in all
others, statewide, and nationally. Poverty rates increased by more than 2 percentage points in
Garfield and Iron, fell in the other counties, and rose by 1.1 percentage points statewide and
nationally.
By 1999, incomes had increased in all counties, at both the household and per capita levels.
Washington had the highest, with a median household income of $46,752 and per capita income
of $19,942. Iron County had the lowest household income at $41,603, while per capita income
28
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
was lowest in Garfield, at $16,884. The state median household income was $57,449, well above
the national median of $51,129. While poverty rates fell significantly to around 8 percent in
Beaver, Garfield, and Kane counties and about 11 percent in Washington, they continued their
stubborn rise in Iron County, where they increased to nearly 20 percent. Poverty rates statewide
and in the four counties where they fell were below the national average of 11.9 percent.
From 1979 to 1999, median household incomes grew faster than the state in every southwest
county except Iron, where they actually declined 1.6 percent. Increases ranged from 16.4 percent
in Beaver to 22.3 percent in Garfield. The national increase was a much lower 6.3 percent. Per
capita incomes grew in every county from 1969 to 1999, ranging from 21.0 percent in Garfield
(which was less than the increase in household income from 1979 to 1999) to 62.3 percent in
Washington. Statewide, per capita income increased 44.6 percent, while nationally it grew 51.8
percent. As noted earlier, poverty rates fell everywhere except Iron County, where they increased
by 6.1 percentage points from 1969 to 1999. Beaver and Garfield saw their poverty cut in half,
while Washington’s was down more than 40 percent and Kane’s decreased by more than onethird.
Educational Attainment
In 2000, the educational attainment of southwest Utah residents 25 years and older was slightly
lower than that in the rest of the state (Table 1.9). The shares of people with associate’s degrees
and higher were lower in the region than in the rest of the state, and the shares of those without
a high school diploma and those with only a high school diploma were higher than in the rest of
the state. However, some individual counties in the region had attainment levels matching or
exceeding those in the rest of the state.
Not surprisingly, given the presence of Southern Utah University, Iron County had the highest
share of people with at least a bachelor’s degree, 23.8 percent. In the county, 8.1 percent of
people 25 and older had an associate’s degree, 16.3 percent had a bachelor’s, 4.9 percent had a
master’s, and 1.4 percent had a doctoral degree; the county exceeded rates in the rest of the state
(excluding the southwestern counties) only for associate’s and doctorate degrees. Iron also had
the lowest share in the region of people with only a high school education or less, 24.1 percent
and 11.4 percent respectively, and was below the rest of the state in these measures as well.
At the other end of the scale, Beaver County had the population with the least amount of formal
education in the region. Only 12.1 percent, less than one-eighth, had a bachelor’s degree or
higher. This is less than half the rate in the rest of the state (excluding the southwestern
counties). Its attainment rates for bachelor’s degrees (7.8 percent), master’s degrees (3.1 percent),
and doctorates (0.1 percent) were also the lowest in the region and below levels in the rest of the
state.
Washington County had the highest concentration of people with professional degrees, e.g.
doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, and dentists, and its rate (1.7 percent) matched that of the rest of
the state. The Dixie Regional Medical Center in St. George is likely where many of these people
work. The share of people in the county with an associate’s degree, 8.0 percent, was just behind
the share in Iron County, not surprising given that Washington County is also home to Dixie
State College.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
29
From 1970 to 1980, in all five counties in the southwest, the share of people with only a high
school education increased. It continued to increase until 1990 in Beaver and Garfield counties,
before falling in 2000. However, the share with less than a high school education declined
everywhere from 1970 to 2000 except in Beaver County, where it declined until 1990, then
increased slightly in 2000. Similarly, the share of people with at least a bachelor’s degree grew in
every county from 1970 to 2000 except Kane, where it fell from 1980 to 1990 before rising again
in 2000.
Table 1.9
Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older, 1970–2000
Washington Southwest
Rest of
Utah
Maximum Schooling Completed Beaver Garfield
Iron
Kane
1970
Not high school graduate
High school graduate only
College: 1 to 3 years
Bachelor’s degree or higher
Total high school graduates
39.3%
35.0%
17.3%
8.4%
60.7%
41.0%
36.9%
13.5%
9.6%
59.9%
26.1%
31.5%
28.0%
14.3%
73.9%
33.1%
36.1%
17.4%
13.4%
66.9%
38.7%
29.7%
20.0%
11.6%
61.3%
34.6%
32.1%
21.4%
12.0%
65.5%
32.7%
36.0%
17.3%
14.0%
67.3%
1980
College: 1 to 3 years
24.0%
44.9%
22.5%
8.6%
76.0%
27.5%
38.1%
21.1%
13.3%
72.5%
16.7%
32.8%
30.6%
19.9%
83.3%
19.0%
38.2%
28.1%
14.7%
81.0%
20.2%
38.6%
26.3%
14.9%
79.8%
20.0%
37.4%
27.0%
15.7%
80.0%
20.0%
35.9%
24.1%
20.0%
80.0%
1990
Some college, no degree
Associate’s degree
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Professional school degree
Doctorate degree
16.6%
46.5%
22.7%
5.3%
7.0%
1.1%
0.7%
0.1%
9.0%
83.4%
20.1%
42.1%
17.6%
5.2%
12.5%
1.8%
0.6%
0.1%
15.0%
79.9%
14.2%
26.6%
29.5%
7.8%
15.2%
4.8%
0.6%
1.4%
21.9%
85.8%
17.5%
35.7%
26.7%
8.2%
8.0%
2.7%
0.7%
0.4%
11.8%
82.5%
15.5%
29.5%
28.9%
8.4%
12.1%
3.6%
1.3%
0.7%
17.7%
84.5%
15.6%
31.0%
27.9%
7.9%
12.3%
3.5%
1.0%
0.8%
17.6%
84.4%
14.8%
27.0%
27.9%
7.8%
15.6%
4.5%
1.4%
1.0%
22.5%
85.2%
2000
Some college credit, < 1 year
1+ years of college, no degree
Associate’s degree
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Professional school degree
Doctorate degree
16.8%
38.4%
9.2%
18.2%
5.3%
7.8%
3.1%
1.1%
0.1%
12.1%
83.2%
14.2%
32.6%
8.5%
19.4%
5.1%
14.8%
3.6%
1.1%
0.7%
20.3%
85.8%
11.4%
24.1%
9.1%
23.6%
8.1%
16.3%
4.9%
1.2%
1.4%
23.8%
88.6%
13.6%
26.2%
10.2%
22.1%
6.8%
14.0%
4.6%
1.4%
1.2%
21.1%
86.4%
12.4%
26.7%
11.1%
20.8%
8.0%
13.9%
4.5%
1.7%
0.9%
21.0%
87.6%
12.5%
26.9%
10.5%
21.2%
7.7%
14.2%
4.5%
1.5%
1.0%
21.1%
87.5%
12.3%
24.4%
8.9%
20.1%
7.9%
18.1%
5.5%
1.7%
1.2%
26.5%
87.7%
Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau decennial census data.
30
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
2
Employment
Southwest Region
Employment
Nonagricultural employment in the southwest region increased from 9,583 in 1970 to 75,660 in
2005, a 689.5 percent overall increase representing an average annual growth rate of 5.9 percent
(Table 2.1). This was driven largely by Washington County, where employment grew 1511.8
percent from 3,197 to 51,529. Over the same period statewide nonagricultural employment grew
235.7 percent, an average annual growth rate of 3.4 percent. The southwest’s share of statewide
employment more than doubled from 2.7 percent in 1970 to 6.3 percent in 2006. The region’s
employment growth accounted for 7.8 percent of state employment growth from 1970 to 2006.
Table 2.1
Total Nonagricultural Employment, 1970–2006
State
Southwest
Beaver
Garfield
Iron
Kane
Washington
1970
1980
1990
2000
2006
358,654
9,583
929
984
3,830
643
3,197
551,833
16,052
1,052
1,789
5,662
1,016
6,533
724,013
26,851
1,283
1,474
7,655
1,572
14,867
1,074,879
54,518
1,886
2,175
14,070
2,808
33,579
Total
1,203,914
235.7%
75,660
689.5%
1,973
112.4%
2,260
129.7%
16,802
338.8%
3,092
380.9%
51,527 1511.8%
Change
Avg. An. % of State
3.4%
5.9%
2.1%
2.3%
4.2%
4.5%
8.0%
100%
7.8%
0.1%
0.2%
1.5%
0.3%
5.7%
Table 2.2
Unemployment Rates, 1970–2006
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Beaver Garfield Iron
5.5%
6.7%
4.1%
4.3%
5.0%
4.8%
4.0%
4.0%
5.3%
4.8%
4.8%
3.7%
3.5%
3.8%
4.6%
5.3%
4.5%
4.1%
2.9%
21.3%
8.0%
9.4%
11.4%
13.8%
10.0%
10.8%
12.3%
10.1%
8.5%
8.7%
7.8%
6.8%
7.9%
9.4%
9.1%
7.9%
7.2%
4.8%
Kane
4.6% 15.3%
8.7% 7.1%
5.1% 6.1%
5.2% 7.6%
3.9% 7.8%
3.9% 7.0%
3.6% 9.0%
3.4% 8.6%
3.8% 7.5%
3.3% 5.0%
3.9% 3.8%
3.6% 3.8%
3.3% 3.8%
4.5% 4.2%
5.2% 5.2%
5.3% 5.5%
4.5% 5.4%
3.8% 4.7%
2.7% 3.3%
Washington Southwest
5.5%
6.4%
4.0%
4.6%
4.4%
3.7%
3.1%
3.2%
3.6%
3.3%
3.7%
3.5%
3.5%
4.1%
4.8%
4.8%
4.3%
3.5%
2.6%
7.5%
7.4%
4.8%
5.3%
5.1%
4.4%
4.0%
4.0%
4.2%
3.7%
4.0%
3.7%
3.6%
4.3%
5.1%
5.1%
4.5%
3.8%
2.8%
State
U.S.
6.1%
6.3%
4.4%
4.7%
4.9%
4.2%
3.9%
3.5%
3.5%
3.2%
3.7%
3.6%
3.4%
4.4%
5.8%
5.6%
5.0%
4.3%
3.2%
4.9%
7.1%
5.6%
6.8%
7.5%
6.9%
6.1%
5.6%
5.4%
4.9%
4.5%
4.2%
4.0%
4.7%
5.8%
6.0%
5.5%
5.1%
4.6%
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
31
Unemployment rates in the region have fallen considerably from their 1970 levels (Table 2.2). In
that year, the average for the region was 7.5%, higher than in the state as a whole and the
country. Among the five counties, Garfield and Kane were by far the worst off. More than one
in five members of Garfield’s workforce, 21.3%, was without a job in 1970; more than one in
seven, 15.3%, was unemployed in Kane County. Beaver, Iron, and Washington were all below
the statewide average, though only Iron was below the national average. By 2006, every county
except Garfield had an unemployment rate below the national rate of 4.6%. Beaver, Iron, and
Washington counties were also lower than the statewide rate of 3.2%. Over the study period,
Garfield nearly always had the highest unemployment rate of the five counties. Since 1990, the
regional unemployment rate has been lower than the national rate, and since 2001, the region’s
rate has been lower than the statewide rate.
Tables 2.3a and 2.3b show southwest nonagricultural employment by industry from 1970
through 2006. Over the study period, the system by which businesses are classified was changed.
The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) was developed in the 1930s “to classify
establishments by the type of activity in which they are primarily engaged.” It was revised
periodically to reflect changes in the composition and organization of the economy, with the last
update in 1987. Due to significant and rapid structural changes in the U.S. economy, the SIC
system was replaced by the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) in 1997,
and the Department of Workforce Services began reporting by NAICS category in 2001.
Whereas the SIC had classified business establishments into 10 major divisions with two
subsequent layers of detail, NAICS uses 20 broad sectors, each with four layers of subcategories.
In some cases the DWS combines sectors into larger conglomerations, e.g., finance, insurance,
and real estate (FIRE), and trade, transportation, and utilities (TTU). All of this complicates
comparisons of economic activity over time, but some generalizations may be made.
Regionally, mining has been the only major industry to see a decline in employment. From 1990
through 2005, average employment was below its 1970 and 1980 levels. Only in 2006 did mining
employment surpass its 1970 level, but only by nine jobs. Nevertheless, its share of total
employment declined from 3.8 percent in 1970 to 0.5 percent in 2006.
From 1970 to 2000, services and trade were the major contributors to regional employment
growth, accounting for 29.0 percent and 27.8 percent, respectively (Table 2.3a). Services added
13,040 jobs, increasing almost ten-fold, while trade added 12,477 jobs for a six-fold increase.
Services also grew from 15.3 percent of total employment to 26.6 percent. Trade’s share was
relatively stable at a little more than one-quarter of all nonagricultural jobs. Government job
growth contributed 16.9 percent of regional growth, increasing by 7,580 or 250.3 percent.
However, its share of total employment declined from 31.6 percent in 1970 to 19.5 percent in
2000. The construction industry also made a significant contribution to the region’s growth,
providing 10.3 percent of new jobs over the period and expanding its share of the economy
from 5.7 percent to 9.5 percent. The number of construction jobs grew 850 percent, from 546 to
5,187. This growth rate was second only to that of the service industry.
From 2001 to 2006, services—comprising professional and business services, education and
health services, leisure and hospitality, and other services—accounted for 36.9 percent of the
region’s job growth, adding a total of 6,937 jobs (Table 2.3b). Among services, education and
health services grew the fastest, 59.0 percent, representing 17.2 percent of total employment
growth and providing 11.7 percent of regional employment in 2006. Construction continued its
32
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.3a
Southwest MCD Nonagricultural Employment by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
Mining
Number Share
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Change
Share of
Growth
361
499
279
251
196
231
284
276
263
257
257
279
296
–18.0%
3.8%
3.1%
1.0%
0.9%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
Construction
Manufacturing
Number Share Number Share
546
1,308
1,292
1,519
1,902
2,515
3,640
4,082
4,249
4,282
4,480
5,047
5,187
850.0%
5.7%
8.1%
4.8%
5.3%
6.2%
7.4%
9.3%
9.5%
9.3%
8.9%
8.9%
9.7%
9.5%
10.3%
–0.1%
912
1,497
2,638
2,538
2,704
2,828
3,162
3,481
3,844
4,444
4,737
4,870
4,728
418.4%
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Number Share Number Share Number Share
9.5%
9.3%
9.8%
8.9%
8.8%
8.3%
8.1%
8.1%
8.4%
9.2%
9.4%
9.3%
8.7%
544
1,003
1,542
1,468
1,412
1,492
1,734
1,940
2,104
2,163
2,326
2,352
2,365
334.7%
8.5%
5.7%
6.2%
5.7%
5.1%
4.6%
4.4%
4.4%
4.5%
4.6%
4.5%
4.6%
4.5%
4.3%
4.1%
2,492
4,125
7,535
8,108
8,716
9,788
11,440
12,480
13,388
13,819
14,090
14,473
14,969
500.7%
26.0%
25.7%
28.1%
28.3%
28.5%
28.9%
29.3%
29.1%
29.2%
28.7%
28.0%
27.7%
27.5%
27.8%
237
786
822
993
1,063
1,201
1,410
1,478
1,658
1,588
1,777
1,815
1,862
685.7%
2.5%
4.9%
3.1%
3.5%
3.5%
3.5%
3.6%
3.4%
3.6%
3.3%
3.5%
3.5%
3.4%
Services
Government
1,463
2,210
6,311
6,885
7,569
8,382
9,350
10,668
11,411
12,154
12,857
13,254
14,503
891.3%
3.6%
15.3%
13.8%
23.5%
24.0%
24.7%
24.7%
24.0%
24.9%
24.9%
25.3%
25.5%
25.4%
26.6%
29.0%
3,028
4,624
6,432
6,876
7,060
7,488
7,991
8,436
8,888
9,387
9,849
10,183
10,608
250.3%
Total
31.6%
28.8%
24.0%
24.0%
23.1%
22.1%
20.5%
19.7%
19.4%
19.5%
19.6%
19.5%
19.5%
Share of
State
9,583
16,052
26,851
28,638
30,622
33,925
39,011
42,841
45,805
48,094
50,373
52,273
54,518
468.9%
2.7%
2.9%
3.7%
3.8%
4.0%
4.2%
4.5%
4.7%
4.8%
4.8%
4.9%
5.0%
5.1%
100%
6.3%
16.9%
Note: TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. Figure at intersection of Share of Growth row and Share of State column is the region’s share of the
state’s employment growth.
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services and BEBR calculations.
Table 2.3b
Southwest MCD Nonagricultural Employment by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Mining
Year
No.
2001
241
2002
214
2003
194
2004
222
2005
241
2006
370
Change 53.5%
Share of
0.7%
Growth
Construction Manufacturing
Share
No.
Share
0.4% 5,338 9.4%
0.4% 5,496 9.5%
0.3% 5,942 9.9%
0.3% 7,021 10.9%
0.3% 8,908 12.7%
0.5% 10,515 13.9%
97.0%
27.1%
No.
Share
4,454
4,091
4,318
4,791
5,192
5,417
21.6%
7.9%
7.0%
7.2%
7.4%
7.4%
7.2%
5.1%
TTU
Information
No.
Share
No.
12,708
13,039
13,256
13,926
15,026
16,043
26.2%
22.5%
22.5%
22.2%
21.6%
21.4%
21.2%
901
952
1,095
1,051
1,136
1,149
27.5%
17.5%
1.3%
Share
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
Financial
Activity
No.
Share
2,120
2,263
2,443
2,576
2,809
3,232
52.5%
5.8%
3.7%
3.9%
4.1%
4.0%
4.0%
4.3%
Prof. & Bus. Edu. & Health
Services
Services
No.
Share
No.
Share
4,129
4,400
4,059
4,547
4,878
5,154
24.8%
5.4%
7.3%
7.6%
6.8%
7.0%
7.0%
6.8%
Leisure &
Hospitality
No.
Share
5,571
6,077
6,573
7,439
8,047
8,859
59.0%
9.8% 8,436
10.5% 8,483
11.0% 8,662
11.5% 9,276
11.5% 9,677
11.7% 10,385
23.1%
17.2%
10.2%
14.9%
14.6%
14.5%
14.4%
13.8%
13.7%
Other
Services
No. Share
1,539
1,754
1,849
1,943
2,113
2,214
43.9%
3.5%
2.7%
3.0%
3.1%
3.0%
3.0%
2.9%
Government
No.
Share
Total
11,154
11,281
11,383
11,767
12,057
12,322
10.5%
19.7%
19.4%
19.0%
18.2%
17.2%
16.3%
56,591
58,050
59,774
64,559
70,084
75,660
33.7%
5.2%
5.4%
5.6%
5.8%
6.1%
6.3%
100%
15.6%
6.1%
Note: Figure at intersection of Share of Growth row and Share of State column is the region’s share of the state’s employment growth.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Share
of
State
33
strong performance, nearly doubling employment, the fastest-growing sector in the period. It
also contributed 27.1 percent of regional growth and, as of 2006, provided 13.9 percent of
regional employment. Trade, transportation, and utilities (TTU) employment grew 26.2 percent
from 2001 to 2006 and accounted for a little over one-fifth of total employment in 2006. This
“supersector” was responsible for 17.5 percent of regional job growth. Government’s share of
employment continued to decline in the period, providing 16.3 percent of jobs in 2006, only
slightly more than half its share in 1970.
To compare the southwest region’s changing economic structure to that of the state, BEBR
calculated location quotients for 1970 through 2006 (Table 2.4). Location quotients are the ratio
of an industry’s share of employment in a study area (in this case the Southwest MCD) to its
share in a reference area (Utah). Therefore, values greater than 1.00 indicate relative
specialization in the study area.
Most sectors showed little change from 1970 to 2000, with the most noticeable difference being
the decline in mining from 1.07 to 0.73. The region remained somewhat specialized in
construction (about 1.4), with smaller specializations in trade (1.17) and government (1.13).
From 2001 to 2006, the southwest increased its construction specialization (to 1.76 by 2006),
lost its relative concentration in government (0.96 by 2006), and saw a continued relative decline
in mining (down to 0.47 by 2005, then up to 0.59 in 2006). However, leisure and hospitality
appeared as an area of specialization relative to the state, though it declined from 1.64 in 2001 to
1.52 in 2006. The region also developed slight specializations in education and health services
and in other services, with location quotients increasing from 0.97 in both cases to 1.05 for the
former and 1.02 for the latter.
Table 2.4
Southwest MCD Location Quotients by Major Industry, 1970–2006
SIC Industry
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
1970 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
1.07
0.93
0.87
0.76
0.58
0.66 0.75 0.72 0.69 0.64 0.65 0.72 0.73
1.40
1.43
1.25
1.25
1.37
1.51 1.67 1.58 1.47 1.37 1.33 1.40 1.43
0.62
0.59
0.66
0.62
0.64
0.61 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.69 0.72 0.74 0.71
0.88
1.01
0.98
0.90
0.81
0.76 0.77 0.80 0.81 0.80 0.81 0.79 0.77
1.17
1.10
1.18
1.18
1.19
1.22 1.23 1.20 1.21 1.20 1.17 1.17 1.17
0.59
1.05
0.65
0.72
0.72
0.69 0.68 0.66 0.68 0.62 0.65 0.64 0.64
0.94
0.76
0.94
0.95
0.97
0.94 0.92 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.92
1.13
1.27
1.15
1.16
1.13
1.12 1.09 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.13
NAICS Industry
Natural Res. & Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
TTU
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
0.64
0.58
0.52
0.54
0.47
1.42
1.50
1.58
1.65
1.79
0.70
0.66
0.69
0.71
0.73
1.10
1.12
1.11
1.09
1.09
0.51
0.57
0.66
0.59
0.58
0.65
0.66
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.58
0.62
0.55
0.56
0.54
0.97
0.99
1.00
1.03
1.03
1.64
1.55
1.56
1.56
1.52
0.97
0.98
1.02
1.01
1.03
1.12
1.07
1.04
1.01
0.98
2006
0.59
1.76
0.70
1.09
0.56
0.72
0.53
1.05
1.52
1.02
0.96
Notes: Values greater than 1.00 indicate specialization relative to the state. TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public
Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; TTU = Trade, Transportation, and Utilities.
34
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Wages
Total real wages (adjusted for inflation) in the southwest grew 718.5 percent from 1970 to 2006,
from $247.1 million to $2.0 billion (in constant 2006 dollars) (Table 2.5). The region’s share of
statewide total wages more than doubled over the period, from 2.0 percent to 4.9 percent.
However, inflation-adjusted average monthly wages increased only 3.7 percent over their level in
1970, from $2,149 to $2,228. They grew slightly faster than the statewide average, increasing
from 75.4 percent of the state average in 1970 to 77.3 percent in 2006.
Table 2.5
Real Wage Trends in Southwest Utah, 1970–2006
1970
Share of State
vs. State Average
1980
1990
2000
2006
Change
$247.1 $416.3 $622.3 $1,344.9 $2,022.7 718.5%
2.0%
2.3%
2.8%
3.7%
4.9%
2.8%
$2,149 $2,163 $1,931
$2,056
$2,228
3.7%
75.4% 78.8% 75.1%
72.7%
77.3%
1.9%
Looking at total wages by industry (Table 2.6a), in 1970 government was by far the dominant
sector, paying more than one-third of total wages. The next closest sector was trade, providing
one-fifth of wages. Construction, TCPU (transportation, communications, and public utilities),
manufacturing, and services each paid about 9 percent of total wages in the region, while FIRE
had the smallest share, with 2.5 percent. By 2000, government’s share had declined to 22.1
percent, while services grew to almost one-quarter. Trade was nearly the same, at 20.8 percent,
while construction and manufacturing increased slightly to about 10.5 percent. However,
mining’s share of total wages plummeted from 6.3 percent in 1970 to 0.8 percent in 2000.
From 2001 to 2006 (Table 2.6b), mining continued its decline through 2005, then began to turn
around in 2006. Likewise, government’s position as a source of wages decreased further, though
it was still significant with 17.5 percent of total wages in 2006. The “supersector” of trade,
transportation, and utilities (TTU) was the largest source of wages, averaging about 23 percent
over the period, though it was down slightly to 22.0 percent in 2006. Given that under the SIC
system, trade represented 20.8 percent of total wages in 2000, while transportation,
communications, and public utilities paid only 7.0 percent, it is probably safe to surmise that
trade provides the majority of wages in the NAICS category of TTU. Combining professional
and business services, education and health services, leisure and hospitality, and other services,
we see that the service sector in general provided nearly 30 percent of total wages in 2006.
Construction grew to 15.1 percent of wages in 2006, from 10.1 percent in 2001. Manufacturing’s
share declined slightly from 9.9 percent to 8.0 percent.
Tables 2.7a and 2.7b show average monthly wages in current dollars by industry sector. In 1970,
the top-paying jobs in the southwest were in construction ($675), mining ($665), and TCPU
($639). Services ($228), trade ($309), and manufacturing ($379) paid the least. By 2000,
manufacturing was in the top three ($2,134), following TCPU ($2,832) and mining ($2,700). In
2006, financial activity was the highest paying sector ($2,921), followed by education and health
services ($2,590) and information ($2,495). Industries at the low end of the wage scale in 2006
included leisure and hospitality ($1,123), other services ($1,883), and mining ($2,166).
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
35
Table 2.6a
Total Nonagricultural Wages in the Southwest MCD by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
(millions of current dollars, except where noted)
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Mining
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share
$2.9
$9.5
$8.6
$7.1
$5.9
$6.6
$8.4
$7.6
$8.1
$7.2
$7.8
$8.4
$9.6
6.3%
$4.4
9.6%
5.6%
$18.1 10.8%
2.2%
$23.0
5.8%
1.6%
$29.8
6.9%
1.2%
$36.0
7.5%
1.2%
$46.3
8.5%
1.3%
$65.9 10.1%
1.0%
$77.0 10.3%
1.0%
$80.4
9.7%
0.8%
$82.6
9.1%
0.8%
$91.7
9.2%
0.8% $107.2 10.1%
0.8% $120.1 10.5%
$4.1
$17.2
$44.8
$46.0
$51.3
$55.6
$64.9
$77.0
$87.6
$102.2
$112.8
$118.5
$121.1
9.0%
10.2%
11.3%
10.6%
10.7%
10.2%
9.9%
10.3%
10.5%
11.3%
11.3%
11.1%
10.6%
$4.2 9.1%
$17.8 10.6%
$42.5 10.7%
$38.8 9.0%
$36.8 7.7%
$41.2 7.5%
$48.6 7.4%
$55.4 7.4%
$60.8 7.3%
$67.4 7.4%
$73.5 7.4%
$75.6 7.1%
$80.4 7.0%
$9.3
$29.0
$78.1
$87.8
$97.6
$112.7
$140.9
$160.7
$181.0
$194.1
$204.1
$222.1
$237.4
20.2%
17.2%
19.6%
20.3%
20.3%
20.6%
21.6%
21.5%
21.8%
21.4%
20.4%
20.9%
20.8%
$1.1
$8.0
$13.4
$16.6
$19.6
$23.9
$28.6
$31.7
$35.3
$36.2
$42.5
$42.3
$44.4
2.5%
4.7%
3.4%
3.8%
4.1%
4.4%
4.4%
4.2%
4.3%
4.0%
4.3%
4.0%
3.9%
$4.0
$18.4
$79.0
$88.9
$105.4
$120.8
$141.0
$168.0
$189.7
$209.6
$231.9
$243.9
$277.6
8.7%
10.9%
19.8%
20.5%
21.9%
22.1%
21.6%
22.5%
22.8%
23.1%
23.2%
22.9%
24.3%
$15.9
$50.5
$108.3
$118.2
$127.8
$138.8
$154.8
$169.7
$187.7
$206.5
$234.3
$246.5
$252.4
Total
Current $
34.6%
$45.9
30.0%
$168.6
27.2%
$397.8
27.3%
$433.1
26.6%
$480.3
25.4%
$545.9
23.7%
$653.0
22.7%
$747.1
22.6%
$830.6
22.8%
$905.7
23.5%
$998.6
23.2% $1,064.5
22.1% $1,142.9
Constant $
$247.1
$416.3
$622.3
$648.9
$695.7
$768.1
$897.9
$1,001.2
$1,084.1
$1,154.3
$1,249.4
$1,296.4
$1,344.9
Notes: TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. Constant-dollar figures are in 2006 dollars.
Table 2.6b
Total Nonagricultural Wages in the Southwest MCD by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Mining
Year
Financial
Prof. & Bus.
Ed. & Health
Leisure &
Other
Government
Total
Activity
Services
Services
Hospitality
Services
Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Current $ Constant $
Wages Share Wages Share Wages
TTU
Information
2001
$7.9
0.6% $123.4 10.1%
$120.2
9.9% $279.6 23.0%
$23.7
1.9%
$53.1
4.4%
$79.1
6.5% $141.8 11.7%
$91.7
7.5%
$27.3
2.2% $269.3 22.1% $1,216.9
$1,381.5
2002
$5.4
0.4% $128.7 10.1%
$108.7
8.5% $300.7 23.5%
$25.8
2.0%
$60.3
4.7%
$84.8
6.6% $154.2 12.0%
$97.6
7.6%
$32.3
2.5% $282.2 22.0% $1,280.5
$1,426.1
2003
$4.2
0.3% $139.1 10.3%
$115.8
8.6% $316.9 23.4%
$29.7
2.2%
$69.4
5.1%
$79.2
5.8% $173.1 12.8% $101.5
7.5%
$34.7
2.6% $289.8 21.4% $1,353.5
$1,476.2
2004
$4.7
0.3% $175.6 11.6%
$134.6
8.9% $350.2 23.1%
$30.6
2.0%
$76.4
5.0%
$91.9
6.1% $192.3 12.7% $108.9
7.2%
$38.0
2.5% $312.7 20.6% $1,516.0
$1,615.7
2005
$5.7
0.3% $239.8 13.7%
$149.4
8.6% $401.1 23.0%
$34.2
2.0%
$95.6
5.5% $111.9
6.4% $213.4 12.2% $120.5
6.9%
$44.0
2.5% $328.2 18.8% $1,743.8
$1,803.4
2006
$9.6
0.5% $304.5 15.1%
$161.5
8.0% $445.2 22.0%
$34.4
1.7% $113.3
5.6% $135.8
6.7% $275.3 13.6% $140.0
6.9%
$50.0
2.5% $353.1 17.5% $2,022.7
$2,022.7
Note: TTU = Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. Constant-dollar figures are in 2006 dollars.
36
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.7a
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in the Southwest MCD
by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
(current dollars, except where noted)
Year
Mining
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
$665
$1,590
$2,578
$2,362
$2,490
$2,394
$2,450
$2,307
$2,568
$2,327
$2,531
$2,505
$2,700
Const.
Mfg.
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
$675
$1,155
$1,486
$1,633
$1,575
$1,536
$1,508
$1,573
$1,576
$1,608
$1,705
$1,770
$1,930
$379
$957
$1,416
$1,510
$1,581
$1,638
$1,710
$1,843
$1,898
$1,916
$1,984
$2,028
$2,134
$639
$1,478
$2,298
$2,203
$2,169
$2,302
$2,334
$2,382
$2,408
$2,598
$2,632
$2,677
$2,832
$309
$586
$863
$902
$933
$960
$1,027
$1,073
$1,127
$1,170
$1,207
$1,279
$1,321
$400
$846
$1,363
$1,394
$1,538
$1,658
$1,689
$1,786
$1,775
$1,899
$1,993
$1,944
$1,986
Services Gov’t.
$228
$697
$1,043
$1,076
$1,160
$1,201
$1,257
$1,312
$1,386
$1,437
$1,503
$1,534
$1,595
Total Average
Current $
Constant $
$399
$876
$1,235
$1,260
$1,307
$1,341
$1,395
$1,453
$1,511
$1,569
$1,652
$1,697
$1,747
$2,149
$2,163
$1,931
$1,888
$1,893
$1,887
$1,918
$1,948
$1,972
$2,000
$2,067
$2,067
$2,056
$437
$912
$1,404
$1,432
$1,508
$1,544
$1,614
$1,676
$1,760
$1,833
$1,982
$2,017
$1,983
Notes: TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.
Constant-dollar figures are in 2006 dollars.
Table 2.7b
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in the Southwest MCD by NAICS Sector,
2001–2006
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Mining Const.
$2,731
$2,093
$1,825
$1,781
$1,968
$2,166
$1,926
$1,952
$1,950
$2,084
$2,243
$2,413
Mfg.
TTU
Info.
Fin’l.
Act.
Prof & Ed. & Leisure
Bus. Health & Hosp.
Other
Svcs.
Gov’t.
$2,248
$2,215
$2,236
$2,342
$2,399
$2,484
$1,834
$1,922
$1,992
$2,096
$2,225
$2,312
$2,188
$2,256
$2,263
$2,430
$2,507
$2,495
$2,085
$2,219
$2,368
$2,471
$2,836
$2,921
$1,596
$1,606
$1,625
$1,685
$1,912
$2,196
$1,477
$1,533
$1,566
$1,630
$1,737
$1,883
$2,012
$2,084
$2,122
$2,214
$2,268
$2,388
$2,122
$2,114
$2,195
$2,154
$2,210
$2,590
$906
$959
$977
$978
$1,038
$1,123
Total Average
Current $ Constant $
$1,792
$1,838
$1,887
$1,957
$2,073
$2,228
Notes: TTU = Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. Constant-dollar figures are in 2006 dollars.
Occupations
Note that the DWS employment and wage data are by place of work, that is, we don’t know
where the employees and recipients of wages paid in the southwest region actually live. For
example, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, 2,104 workers commuted into the region in
2000 in addition to the 54,302 intraregional commuters. To get a better picture of what
southwest region residents do, BEBR looked at the Census Bureau’s occupational distribution of
the civilian workforce aged 16 and older, which is given by place of residence.
Table 2.8 shows that the employed civilian population of the southwest region was engaged
primarily in management, professional, and related occupations (27.3 percent) and sales and
office occupations (27.0 percent). Nearly 18 percent were employed in service occupations; 13.5
percent were in construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations; and 13.0 percent worked
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
37
$2,034
$2,047
$2,058
$2,086
$2,144
$2,228
at production, transportation, and material-moving occupations. Only 1.3 percent were engaged
in farming, fishing, and forestry. Digging a little deeper, professional and related occupations
accounted for 15.2 percent, with 6.6 percent being education, training, and library occupations.
Sales and related occupations and office and administrative support occupations kept almost
equal shares of southwest residents busy at 13.9 percent and 13.2 percent, respectively. Nearly 10
Table 2.8
Occupational Distribution by Sex for Employed Residents
of the Southwest Region, 2000
Occupation
Employed civilian population 16 years and over
Management, professional, and related occupations
Management, business, and financial operations occupations
Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers
Farmers and farm managers
Business and financial operations occupations
Business operations specialists
Financial specialists
Professional and related occupations
Computer and mathematical occupations
Architecture and engineering occupations
Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers
Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians
Life, physical, and social science occupations
Community and social services occupations
Legal occupations
Education, training, and library occupations
Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations
Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations
Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations
Health technologists and technicians
Service occupations
Healthcare support occupations
Protective service occupations
Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors
Other protective service occupations, including supervisors
Food preparation and serving related occupations
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations
Personal care and service occupations
Sales and office occupations
Sales and related occupations
Office and administrative support occupations
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations
Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations
Construction and extraction occupations
Supervisors, construction and extraction workers
Construction trades workers
Extraction workers
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations
Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations
Production occupations
Transportation and material-moving occupations
Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers
Aircraft and traffic control occupations
Motor vehicle operators
Rail, water and other transportation occupations
Material-moving workers
Total
Male Female
58,289 32,347 25,942
27.3% 26.4%
28.4%
12.0% 14.7%
8.8%
8.0% 10.0%
5.5%
1.1%
1.8%
0.2%
3.0%
2.9%
3.1%
1.1%
0.9%
1.3%
1.9%
2.0%
1.9%
15.2% 11.7%
19.6%
0.7%
1.1%
0.2%
1.0%
1.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.7%
0.2%
0.5%
0.7%
0.2%
0.5%
0.6%
0.3%
1.5%
1.2%
1.8%
0.5%
0.7%
0.4%
6.6%
3.3%
10.6%
1.6%
1.4%
1.8%
3.0%
2.0%
4.1%
2.1%
1.7%
2.6%
0.9%
0.4%
1.5%
17.9% 13.2%
23.7%
2.1%
0.5%
4.2%
1.6%
2.4%
0.7%
1.0%
1.6%
0.2%
0.7%
0.8%
0.5%
6.7%
4.6%
9.4%
4.3%
4.5%
4.1%
3.1%
1.3%
5.4%
27.0% 16.4%
40.2%
13.9% 12.0%
16.2%
13.2%
4.4%
24.0%
1.3%
1.9%
0.5%
13.5% 23.5%
0.9%
9.6% 16.8%
0.7%
1.2%
2.2%
0.0%
8.3% 14.4%
0.6%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
3.8%
6.7%
0.3%
13.0% 18.5%
6.2%
6.3%
7.9%
4.2%
6.7% 10.5%
2.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.0%
3.7%
5.9%
1.0%
0.3%
0.6%
0.1%
2.3%
3.5%
0.9%
Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for the rest of Utah (excluding Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, and Washington
counties).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
38
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
percent were engaged in construction and extraction occupations, with the lion’s share (8.3
percent) being construction tradespeople. Eight percent of employed residents worked as
managers, excluding farmers and farm managers. Compared with the rest of the state, higher
concentrations of workers in the southwest region are employed in service occupations, sales,
construction, and farming.
Examining occupations by sex, 40.2 percent of southwest women workers were engaged in sales
and office occupations, with 24.0 percent in office and administrative support and 16.2 percent
in sales and related. Management, professional, and related occupations and service occupations
were also popular, claiming 28.4 percent and 23.7 percent of employed women, respectively. Of
the former category, 10.6 percent were engaged in education, training, and library occupations.
Among service occupations, 9.4 percent of women worked in food preparation and serving
related occupations. For employed men in the southwest, management, professional, and related
occupations (26.4 percent) and construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations (23.5
percent) claimed the largest shares. Within the first category, 14.7 percent work in management,
business, and financial operations and 11.7 percent work in professional and related occupations.
In the second category construction dominates, with 14.4 percent of employed men being
construction trades workers. Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations claim
18.5 percent of the male workforce, with 10.5 percent in production and material-moving
occupations.
The region had higher shares of residents employed in community and social services; education,
training, and library occupations; services; sales; farming, fishing, and forestry occupations,
including farmers and farm managers; construction; and transportation occupations than in the
rest of the state.
Commute Patterns
The Census Bureau tracks place of work by place of residence. Table 2.9 shows that Kane
County had the highest share of residents working outside the county (but still within Utah) at
9.7 percent, and by far the largest share working out of state at 19.1 percent. At the other end of
the scale, only 2.8 percent of Washington County residents worked outside the county (in Utah),
and only 0.8 percent of Beaver County residents worked out of state.
Table 2.9
Place of Work in 2000 by County of Residence
Total workers 16 yrs. and older
Worked in state of residence
Worked in county of residence
Worked outside county of residence
Worked outside state of residence
Beaver
Garfield
Iron
Kane
Washington
No.
Share
No.
Share
No.
Share
No. Share
No.
Share
2,460 100.0% 1,983 100.0% 15,249 100.0% 2,621 100.0% 35,064 100.0%
2,440 99.2% 1,955 98.6% 14,975 98.2% 2,120 80.9% 33,692 96.1%
2,258 91.8% 1,776 89.6% 13,882 91.0% 1,867 71.2% 32,708 93.3%
182
7.4%
179
9.0% 1,093
7.2%
253
9.7%
984
2.8%
20
0.8%
28
1.4%
274
1.8%
501 19.1% 1,372
3.9%
The Census Bureau also compiles data on county-to-county worker flows. The region as a whole
had net out-commuting of 971 in 2000 (Table 2.10). The main sources of the 2,104 commuters
into the region were Mohave County, Ariz. (477 or 22.7 percent), Salt Lake County (304 or 14.4
percent), Coconino County, Ariz. (273 or 13.0 percent), Sevier County (142 or 6.7 percent), Utah
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
39
County (132 or 6.3 percent), and Clark County, Nev. (118 or 5.6 percent). The top destination
counties of the 3,075 regional out-commuters were Clark County, Nev. (883 or 28.7 percent of
out-commuters), Coconino County, Ariz. (411 or 13.4 percent), Salt Lake County ( 253 or 8.2
percent), Mohave County, Ariz. (214 or 7.0 percent), and San Juan County (161 or 5.2 percent).
Table 2.10
Southwest Region Summary Commute Flows, 2000
Top Extraregional In-Commuting
Source Counties
Workplace County
No. Share
Mohave Co., AZ
477 22.7%
Salt Lake Co., UT
304 14.4%
Coconino Co., AZ
273 13.0%
Sevier Co., UT
142
6.7%
Utah Co., UT
132
6.3%
Clark Co., NV
118
5.6%
Total in-commuters
2,104
Top Extraregional Out-Commuting
Destination Counties
Residence County
No. Share
Clark Co., NV
883 28.7%
Coconino Co., AZ
411 13.4%
Salt Lake Co., UT
253
8.2%
Mohave Co., AZ
214
7.0%
San Juan Co., UT
161
5.2%
Total out-commuters
3,075
Net out-commuters
971
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 County-to-County Worker Flow Files.
40
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Beaver County
Employment
Beaver County had the slowest employment growth of the five southwest counties from 1970 to
2006. Its average annual rate of increase was 2.1 percent and total growth was 112.4 percent.
From 1970 to 2000, the county accounted for 2.1 percent of regional growth; from 2001 to 2006
it contributed only 0.6 percent. Employment in Beaver County as a share of regional
employment declined over the period. In 1970, Beaver County’s 929 jobs represented 9.7
percent of the southwest region’s total nonagricultural employment. By 2006, the county’s share
was less than a third of this, at 2.6 percent (Tables 2.11a and 2.11b).
In 1970, nonagricultural employment in Beaver County was dominated by government and
trade, with the former providing 26.8 percent of jobs and the latter 21.9 percent. The next
largest sector was services, at 12.6 percent. By 2000, government employment had grown to 35.7
percent of total employment, trade to 27.1 percent, and services to 13.9 percent. In 2006,
government’s share was down slightly to 34.1 percent, trade, transportation, and utilities
accounted for 27.8 percent (most of which was likely in trade), and leisure and hospitality
provided 16.8 percent of total nonagricultural employment. All other industry sectors each
accounted for less than 5 percent of employment, except construction with 6.2 percent.
Construction was the fastest growing industry from 1970 to 2000, increasing employment by
190.6 percent from 32 to 93 employees. In fact, it peaked in 1996 with 181 employees,
representing 10 percent of total employment in Beaver County that year. Despite this high
growth, construction contributed only 6.4 percent of total employment growth over the period.
Government and trade were the major drivers of employment growth from 1970 to 2000,
providing 44.3 percent and 38.9 percent of growth, respectively. Together, they accounted for
83.2 percent of county employment growth.
In the 2001–06 period, trade, transportation, and utilities was the major driver, increasing 19.9
percent and providing 80.5 percent of total employment growth. Education and health services
employment grew by more than one-third, and contributed 13.3 percent of total employment
growth. Construction jobs increased 23.0 percent, which accounted for one-fifth of total growth.
Two sectors saw job losses over the period: manufacturing was down 23.7 percent and leisure
and hospitality services declined 10.8 percent.
In short, Beaver County’s economic structure has been fairly stable from 1970 to 2006.
Government, trade, and services have consistently been the county’s main sources of
employment, with transportation and utilities also playing significant roles.
To compare Beaver County’s changing economic structure to that of the state, BEBR calculated
location quotients for 1970 through 2006 (Table 2.12). Values greater than 1.00 indicate relative
specialization in the county.
Relative to the state as a whole, in 1970 Beaver County was specialized only in mining (location
quotient of 1.98), despite an employment share of only 7 percent. Trade and government
employment shares in the county were close to their statewide shares (0.98 and 0.96,
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
41
Table 2.11a
Beaver County Nonagricultural Employment by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Change
Share of
Growth
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Number Share Number Share Number Share
65
44
0
2
6
0
13
5
15
35
28
31
38
–41.5%
7.0%
4.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.8%
0.3%
0.8%
1.9%
1.5%
1.7%
2.0%
32
51
30
46
31
36
52
111
181
148
109
117
93
190.6%
3.4%
4.8%
2.3%
3.3%
2.2%
2.5%
3.3%
6.6%
10.0%
7.9%
6.0%
6.4%
4.9%
6.4%
–2.8%
TCPU
Number Share
(D)
31
82
86
90
89
91
92
84
105
107
104
97
212.9%
(D)
126
149
157
150
144
150
176
178
180
176
178
175
38.9%
2.9%
6.4%
6.1%
6.4%
6.1%
5.9%
5.5%
4.6%
5.6%
5.9%
5.6%
5.1%
7.9%
12.0%
11.6%
11.2%
10.7%
9.8%
9.7%
10.4%
9.8%
9.6%
9.6%
9.7%
9.3%
5.9%
Trade
Number Share
203
284
370
394
418
454
475
504
518
536
505
502
511
151.7%
FIRE
Services
21.9%
27.0%
28.8%
28.1%
29.7%
31.0%
30.6%
29.9%
28.6%
28.6%
27.6%
27.3%
27.1%
(D)
29
35
39
34
40
40
40
39
38
37
41
37
27.6%
32.2%
2.8%
2.7%
2.8%
2.4%
2.7%
2.6%
2.4%
2.2%
2.0%
2.0%
2.2%
2.0%
1.0%
117
122
139
187
188
197
206
207
230
226
257
252
262
123.9%
12.6%
11.6%
10.8%
13.3%
13.4%
13.5%
13.3%
12.3%
12.7%
12.1%
14.1%
13.7%
13.9%
15.2%
Government
Number Share
249
365
478
490
490
503
527
551
565
604
610
616
673
170.3%
26.8%
34.7%
37.3%
35.0%
34.8%
34.4%
33.9%
32.7%
31.2%
32.3%
33.4%
33.5%
35.7%
Total
Share of
Region
929
1,052
1,283
1,401
1,407
1,463
1,554
1,686
1,810
1,872
1,829
1,841
1,886
103.0%
9.7%
6.6%
4.8%
4.9%
4.6%
4.3%
4.0%
3.9%
4.0%
3.9%
3.6%
3.5%
3.5%
100%
2.1%
44.3%
Notes: TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. (D) Data not reported to avoid disclosure of individual firm data; for these industries, change and share
of growth are for 1980–2000. Figure at intersection of Share of Growth row and Share of Region column is the county’s contribution to the region’s growth.
Table 2.11b
Beaver County Nonagricultural Employment by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Mining
Year
No.
2001
44
2002
43
2003
51
2004
63
2005
59
2006
54
Change 22.7%
Share of
8.8%
Growth
Share
2.4%
2.3%
2.8%
3.3%
3.0%
2.7%
No.
100
89
80
79
87
123
23.0%
20.4%
Share
5.4%
4.7%
4.3%
4.1%
4.5%
6.2%
No.
93
79
67
69
76
71
–23.7%
Share
5.0%
4.2%
3.6%
3.6%
3.9%
3.6%
–19.5%
TTU
No.
Share
458
478
505
546
547
549
19.9%
24.6%
25.3%
27.3%
28.7%
28.1%
27.8%
80.5%
Information
No.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
Share
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Financial
Activity
No. Share
36
39
37
38
47
45
25.0%
8.0%
1.9%
2.1%
2.0%
2.0%
2.4%
2.3%
Prof. & Bus. Ed. & Health
Services
Services
No.
Share No. Share
12
13
11
13
26
28
133.3%
14.2%
0.6%
0.7%
0.6%
0.7%
1.3%
1.4%
40
40
48
60
55
55
37.5%
2.2%
2.1%
2.6%
3.2%
2.8%
2.8%
13.3%
Leisure &
Hospitality
No.
Share
371
387
356
323
333
331
–10.8%
19.9%
20.4%
19.2%
17.0%
17.1%
16.8%
–35.4%
Other
Share
Government
Services
of
No.
Share No. Share Total Region
35
34
31
38
37
44
25.7%
8.0%
1.9%
1.8%
1.7%
2.0%
1.9%
2.2%
671
691
664
675
677
673
0.3%
1.8%
36.1%
36.5%
35.9%
35.5%
34.8%
34.1%
1,860
1,893
1,850
1,904
1,944
1,973
6.1%
3.3%
3.3%
3.1%
2.9%
2.8%
2.6%
100%
0.6%
Notes: TTU = Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. Figure at intersection of Share of Growth row and Share of Region column is the county’s contribution to the region’s growth.
42
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
respectively), while construction and services played a smaller role than at the state level (0.85
and 0.78, respectively). By 2000, the county’s specialization in mining had grown (to 2.71), in
spite of the sector’s employment falling to zero in 1990 and 1993 and representing only 2
percent of total employment in 2000, and the county had developed additional relative
specializations in government (2.08), transportation, communications, and public utilities (1.64),
and trade (1.16). In 2006, Beaver County’s employment share in mining had grown to more than
three times that of the state, though this was down from more than five times in 2004. There
was still a relatively strong concentration in government jobs (2.01), as well as specializations in
the new NAICS categories of leisure and hospitality (1.86, down from 2.19 in 2001) and trade,
transportation, and utilities (1.43, up from 1.21 in 2001). Note that although Beaver County
showed a relative underconcentration in the service sector from 1970 to 2000, its new
specialization in leisure and hospitality services was likely due to the fact that many of these
businesses (particularly eating and drinking establishments) had previously been classified in the
retail trade sector under the SIC system. As of 2006, professional and business services
employment in Beaver County had only one-tenth the share it did statewide, though this had
doubled since 2001, and education and health services were at only one-quarter of their
statewide concentration. There was no employment reported at all in the information sector
from 2001 through 2006.
Table 2.12
Beaver County Location Quotients by Major Industry, 1970–2006
SIC Industry
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
1970 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
1.98
1.25
0.00
0.12
0.39
0.00 0.87 0.33 1.00 2.24 1.95 2.27 2.71
0.85
0.85
0.61
0.78
0.49
0.50 0.60 1.09 1.58 1.22 0.89 0.92 0.74
–
0.19
0.43
0.43
0.46
0.45 0.43 0.40 0.34 0.42 0.45 0.45 0.42
–
1.94
1.99
1.97
1.87
1.69 1.68 1.84 1.74 1.71 1.69 1.71 1.64
0.98
1.16
1.21
1.17
1.24
1.31 1.28 1.23 1.19 1.19 1.16 1.15 1.16
–
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.50
0.53 0.48 0.45 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.41 0.37
0.78
0.64
0.43
0.53
0.52
0.51 0.51 0.47 0.47 0.44 0.51 0.49 0.48
0.96
1.53
1.79
1.69
1.71
1.75 1.81 1.81 1.79 1.87 1.94 1.96 2.08
NAICS Industry
Construction
Manufacturing
TTU
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
3.55
3.55
4.44
5.16
4.11
0.81
0.74
0.69
0.63
0.63
0.44
0.39
0.35
0.35
0.38
1.21
1.26
1.37
1.44
1.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.35
0.33
0.34
0.41
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.21
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.25
2.19
2.17
2.07
1.84
1.89
0.67
0.58
0.55
0.67
0.65
2.05
2.01
1.96
1.97
1.98
2006
3.29
0.79
0.35
1.43
0.00
0.38
0.11
0.25
1.86
0.77
2.01
Notes: Values greater than 1.00 indicate specialization relative to the state. TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public
Wages
Total real wages (adjusted for inflation) in Beaver County grew 116.1 percent from 1970 to 2006,
from $24.5 million to $52.9 million (in constant 2006 dollars) (Table 2.13). The county’s share of
total wages in the region declined over the period, from 9.9 percent to 2.6 percent. Inflationadjusted average monthly wages were relatively unchanged in 2006 from their level in 1970, at
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
43
$2,235 vs. $2,197, respectively. They were fairly consistently above the regional average, falling
slightly below in only seven of the 19 years studied.
Table 2.13
Real Wage Trends in Beaver County, 1970–2006
1970
Share of Region
Share of State
vs. Region Average
vs. State Average
1980
$24.5
$29.2
9.9%
7.0%
0.2%
0.2%
$2,197 $2,319
102.3% 107.2%
77.1%
84.5%
1990
2000
$30.6
$44.8
4.9%
3.3%
0.1%
0.1%
$1,985 $1,981
102.8% 96.4%
77.2% 70.1%
2006
Change
$52.9
2.6%
0.1%
$2,235
100.3%
77.5%
116.1%
–7.3%
–0.1%
1.7%
–2.0%
0.4%
sector, paying 31.3 percent of total wages. The next closest industries were trade, paying 11.3
percent, and mining, which paid 10.1 percent. By 2000, government had grown to 37.4 percent
and trade to 13.4 percent, but mining had fallen to 2.7 percent. Transportation, communications,
and public utilities was second only to government, paying nearly one-quarter of all
nonagricultural wages that year. If data were available for this sector in 1970, one suspects its
share would have been similar. Over the period, the service industry’s share of total wages grew
from 5.9 percent to 9.4 percent.
In the 2001–06 period (Table 2.14b), under the NAICS industry classification system,
government and trade, transportation, and utilities together paid about 70 percent of total wages.
All other sectors accounted for less than 10 percent each. So, even though leisure and hospitality
services provided 16.8 percent of jobs in 2006, it paid only 6.3 percent of wages, due to the low
wages for most jobs in this sector. In fact, this becomes obvious when we examine average
monthly wages by industry.
From 1970 to 2000, the trade sector consistently had the lowest monthly wages, ranging (in
current dollars) from $212 in 1970 to $830 in 2000 (Table 2.15a). Leisure and hospitality was the
lowest-paying sector from 2001 through 2006 (Table 2.15b), with nominal monthly wages
reaching a height of only $843 in 2006. The highest-paying sector from 1970 to 2000 was by far
the SIC conglomeration of transportation, communications, and public utilities, with nominal
monthly wages increasing from $2,109 to $4,470 over the period. From 2001 to 2006, wages in
the NAICS conglomeration of trade, transportation, and utilities (TTU) were closer to those in
other industries, no doubt due to the inclusion of the low-paying trade sector. In the latter
period, manufacturing emerged as the highest-paying industry, with monthly wages climbing
from $2,346 in 2001 to $3,248 in 2005, then falling to $3,013 in 2006 when it was matched by
TTU. Concurrently, manufacturing employment fell by almost one-quarter.
44
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.14a
Total Nonagricultural Wages in Beaver County by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
Mining
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
Total
Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Current $ Constant $
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
$0.5 10.1%
$1.1 9.2%
$0.0 0.0%
$0.1 0.3%
$0.2 1.1%
$0.0 0.0%
$0.3 1.3%
$0.1 0.3%
$0.4 1.3%
$1.0 2.8%
$0.8 2.2%
$0.7 1.9%
$1.0 2.7%
$0.2
3.4%
$0.8
7.1%
$0.6
3.0%
$1.1
4.7%
$0.4
2.0%
$0.5
2.1%
$0.8
3.2%
$2.0
7.0%
$3.9 11.7%
$2.5
7.2%
$2.1
5.8%
$2.3
6.1%
$2.0
5.2%
(D)
$0.3
$1.1
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
$1.6
$1.2
$1.9
$2.3
$2.0
$2.1
2.5%
5.8%
6.6%
6.6%
6.2%
5.8%
5.4%
3.6%
5.6%
6.2%
5.5%
5.6%
(D)
$3.2
$6.5
$7.1
$7.2
$7.1
$7.2
$8.7
$9.0
$9.3
$9.6
$9.2
$9.4
27.0%
33.0%
31.7%
31.7%
30.2%
28.0%
29.9%
27.4%
26.9%
26.1%
24.7%
24.6%
$0.5
$1.5
$2.8
$2.9
$2.9
$3.4
$3.7
$4.0
$4.3
$4.6
$4.7
$4.8
$5.1
11.3%
12.8%
14.4%
12.7%
12.8%
14.3%
14.3%
13.6%
13.2%
13.4%
12.7%
13.0%
13.4%
(D)
$0.4
$0.6
$0.5
$0.4
$0.5
$0.6
$0.5
$0.6
$0.6
$0.7
$0.7
$0.7
3.2%
2.8%
2.2%
1.9%
2.1%
2.4%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
1.9%
1.9%
1.8%
$0.3
$0.9
$1.4
$1.8
$1.8
$2.1
$2.2
$2.4
$2.7
$2.9
$3.6
$3.6
$3.6
5.9%
7.6%
7.0%
8.2%
8.1%
8.7%
8.8%
8.2%
8.1%
8.4%
9.7%
9.8%
9.4%
$1.4
$3.6
$6.6
$7.5
$8.1
$8.6
$9.3
$9.8
$10.9
$11.7
$13.1
$13.8
$14.2
31.3%
30.5%
34.0%
33.6%
35.9%
36.4%
36.2%
33.6%
33.0%
34.0%
35.5%
37.1%
37.4%
$4.5
$11.8
$19.5
$22.5
$22.6
$23.6
$25.6
$29.0
$33.0
$34.5
$36.9
$37.3
$38.1
$24.5
$29.2
$30.6
$33.6
$32.8
$33.3
$35.2
$38.9
$43.0
$43.9
$46.2
$45.4
$44.8
Notes: TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. (D) Data not reported to avoid disclosure of individual firm data. Constantdollar figures are in 2006 dollars.
Table 2.14b
Total Nonagricultural Wages in Beaver County by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Financial
Leisure &
Other
Total
Government
Activity
Services
Services
Hospitality
Services
Year Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Current $ Constant $
Mining
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$1.1
$1.2
$1.5
$1.7
$1.8
$1.7
2.9%
3.1%
3.6%
3.8%
3.5%
3.3%
$2.1
$2.0
$1.9
$1.8
$1.9
$3.0
5.3%
5.0%
4.4%
3.8%
3.8%
5.7%
$2.6
$2.5
$2.7
$2.7
$3.1
$2.6
6.7%
6.3%
6.2%
5.7%
6.3%
4.9%
TTU
$12.2
$12.5
$15.3
$17.8
$19.9
$20.3
31.4%
31.1%
35.6%
38.5%
39.6%
38.4%
Information
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$0.7
$0.8
$0.9
$0.9
$1.1
$1.2
1.8%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
2.2%
2.3%
$0.2
$0.2
$0.1
$0.2
$0.3
$0.4
0.5%
0.5%
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
$1.0
$1.1
$1.3
$1.4
$1.4
$1.5
2.6%
2.7%
2.9%
3.1%
2.8%
2.9%
$3.4
$3.7
$3.1
$2.8
$3.2
$3.3
8.9%
9.2%
7.2%
6.1%
6.3%
6.3%
$0.5
$0.5
$0.5
$0.6
$0.7
$0.9
1.3%
1.3%
1.2%
1.3%
1.3%
1.7%
$15.0
$15.6
$15.7
$16.4
$16.9
$17.9
38.6%
38.7%
36.5%
35.4%
33.7%
33.8%
$38.9
$40.2
$43.0
$46.3
$50.2
$52.9
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
45
$44.1
$44.8
$46.9
$49.3
$52.0
$52.9
Table 2.15a
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Beaver County
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Mining
$593
$2,081
$0
$2,667
$3,306
$0
$2,154
$1,550
$2,311
$2,276
$2,363
$1,954
$2,217
Const.
Mfg.
TCPU
$407
$1,369
$1,653
$1,922
$1,191
$1,148
$1,316
$1,532
$1,774
$1,392
$1,635
$1,626
$1,776
$255
$768
$1,146
$1,428
$1,381
$1,364
$1,351
$1,412
$1,172
$1,537
$1,787
$1,632
$1,838
(D)
$2,109
$3,607
$3,783
$3,985
$4,130
$3,990
$4,112
$4,222
$4,286
$4,558
$4,311
$4,470
Trade
FIRE
$212
$449
$633
$605
$580
$621
$644
$654
$698
$719
$775
$803
$830
Services Gov’t.
(D)
$1,099
$1,310
$1,051
$1,027
$1,056
$1,258
$1,129
$1,329
$1,397
$1,556
$1,445
$1,550
$193
$611
$815
$818
$812
$874
$908
$959
$967
$1,065
$1,157
$1,203
$1,135
$475
$827
$1,159
$1,283
$1,381
$1,425
$1,468
$1,475
$1,604
$1,615
$1,791
$1,873
$1,763
Total Average
Current $
Constant $
$408
$939
$1,269
$1,336
$1,340
$1,347
$1,374
$1,434
$1,518
$1,535
$1,682
$1,688
$1,684
$2,197
$2,319
$1,985
$2,001
$1,941
$1,895
$1,889
$1,921
$1,981
$1,956
$2,105
$2,055
$1,981
(D) Data not reported to avoid disclosure of individual firm data. Constant-dollar figures are in 2006 dollars.
Table 2.15b
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Beaver County by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Year
Mining Const.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$2,143
$2,408
$2,527
$2,296
$2,490
$2,687
$1,731
$1,876
$1,959
$1,856
$1,814
$2,030
Mfg.
TTU
$2,346
$2,656
$3,328
$3,205
$3,428
$3,013
$2,219
$2,183
$2,524
$2,722
$3,030
$3,085
Info.
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Fin’l.
Act.
Bus. Health & Hosp.
Other
Svcs.
Gov’t.
$1,631
$1,757
$1,947
$1,899
$1,936
$2,207
$1,425
$1,371
$1,110
$1,180
$899
$1,233
$1,166
$1,303
$1,425
$1,368
$1,397
$1,720
$1,862
$1,877
$1,967
$2,020
$2,084
$2,218
$2,082
$2,283
$2,188
$2,004
$2,157
$2,310
$773
$800
$725
$725
$795
$843
Total Average
$1,741
$1,771
$1,936
$2,025
$2,154
$2,235
Occupations
Employment and wage data are by place of work, that is, we don’t know where the employees
and recipients of wages paid in Beaver County actually live. To get a better picture of what
Beaver County residents do, BEBR looked at the Census Bureau’s occupational distribution of
the civilian workforce aged 16 and older, which is given by place of residence (Table 2.16).
In 2000, more than one-quarter (26.2 percent) of employed Beaver County residents were
engaged in management, professional, and related occupations, while service occupations and
sales and office occupations each claimed almost one-fifth of the workforce. Production,
transportation, and material-moving occupations employed about 15 percent of resident
workers, and about one-tenth were engaged in construction, extraction, and maintenance. Of the
five-county southwest region, Beaver County has by far the highest share in farming, fishing, and
forestry occupations with 10.1 percent; this is higher even than its share in the rest of the state.
46
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
$1,976
$1,972
$2,111
$2,158
$2,228
$2,235
Fully one-third of county women were in sales and office occupations, split about evenly
between the two categories. Food preparation and serving-related occupations and education,
training, and library occupations were also popular among women, claiming 11.1 percent and 9.0
percent of the female workforce, respectively. Beaver County men concentrated in management,
professional, and related occupations (27.6 percent), production and transportation occupations
Table 2.16
Occupational Distribution by Sex for Employed Residents of Beaver County,
2000
Occupation
Legal occupations
Service occupations
Extraction workers
Transportation and material moving-occupations
Total
2,490
26.2%
13.8%
5.9%
5.2%
2.7%
1.4%
1.3%
12.4%
0.6%
0.7%
0.5%
0.2%
1.3%
0.5%
0.2%
5.4%
0.8%
2.9%
1.8%
1.1%
18.9%
3.9%
3.1%
2.2%
0.8%
6.2%
3.9%
1.9%
18.8%
9.9%
8.9%
10.1%
10.8%
5.8%
1.2%
4.3%
0.3%
5.0%
15.2%
6.1%
9.1%
0.6%
0.0%
5.1%
2.3%
1.2%
Male Female
1,374
1,116
27.6% 24.6%
18.4%
8.2%
7.2%
4.3%
8.5%
1.1%
2.7%
2.8%
1.8%
1.0%
0.9%
1.8%
9.2% 16.4%
1.1%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
1.7%
0.8%
0.4%
0.6%
0.3%
0.0%
2.5%
9.0%
0.1%
1.6%
1.7%
4.4%
1.5%
2.3%
0.3%
2.1%
10.0% 29.8%
0.4%
8.2%
4.3%
1.5%
3.9%
0.3%
0.4%
1.3%
2.3% 11.1%
2.5%
5.6%
0.7%
3.5%
7.0% 33.3%
4.9% 16.1%
2.1% 17.2%
14.3%
4.9%
19.1%
0.6%
10.3%
0.3%
2.1%
0.2%
7.7%
0.1%
0.5%
0.0%
8.7%
0.4%
22.1%
6.7%
8.1%
3.6%
14.0%
3.1%
0.9%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
8.3%
1.2%
3.8%
0.4%
1.0%
1.3%
Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for the rest of the state (excluding Beaver County).
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
47
(about 21 percent), and construction and maintenance occupations (about 19 percent). Also,
farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, including farmers and farm managers, accounted for
22.8 percent of the local male workforce.
Interestingly, the county had a higher share of residents, both men and women, engaged in life,
physical, and social science occupations than did the rest of the state. Other occupations more
highly represented than in the rest of the state include services; farming, fishing, and forestry
occupations, including farmers and farm managers; extraction workers; installation, maintenance,
and repair occupations; and transportation.
Major Employers
In 2006, major employers in Beaver County included Circle Four Farms hog farm, Union Pacific
Railroad, and Beaver Valley Hospital (Table 2.17). Other significant employers are Beaver High
School, Belknap Elementary School, and the county government. The railroad first came to the
county in 1880; Circle Four Farms opened in 1994; Beaver Valley Hospital was built in 2000.
Table 2.17
Major Employers in Beaver County, 1970–2006
Company
Industry
Employees
Millard County School District
Brush Beryllium Co.
Union Pacific Railroad
Review Apparel
Duke Mfg. Co.
1970
Educational Services
Mining
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
250–499
90
50–99
83
50
Federal/State/County Gov’t.
Beaver School District
Milford Valley Memorial Hospital
Boyles Brothers Drilling
John’s Apparel
Ponderosa Café
1980
Public Administration
Mining
Manufacturing
Retail Trade
155
180
105
55
50
50
50
1990
50–99
Circle Four Farms
2000
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
100–499
Circle Four Farms
Beaver Valley Hospital
Beaver High School
Belknap Elementary School
Beaver County
2006
250–499
100–249
100–249
50–99
50–99
50–99
48
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Commute Patterns
Beaver (Table 2.18) was the only county with net in-commuting in 2000, attracting 148 more
commuters than left. Most in-commuters, 187 or 53.4 percent, came from neighboring Iron
County, with the next largest share (13.1 percent) coming from Salt Lake County. Seventeen
percent of in-commuters came from out of state; and Socorro County, N.M., was the largest
single source of out-of-state in-commuters, sending 17, or 4.9 percent of total in-commuters.
Kane and Iron counties both sent four commuters, representing 1.1 percent each. Iron was the
destination of most out-commuters, receiving 104 or 51.5 percent. The next largest share, 9.4
percent, worked in Washington County. One-tenth of out-commuters worked out of state and
Clark County, Nev., was their main destination, attracting 12 or 5.9 percent of all outcommuters. Three worked in Garfield County, representing 1.5 percent of out-commuters.
Table 2.18
Beaver County Summary Commute Flows, 2000
In-Commuting to Beaver County
Residence County
No. Share
Iron Co., UT
187 53.4%
Salt Lake Co., UT
46 13.1%
Millard Co., UT
23
6.6%
Sevier Co., UT
23
6.6%
Socorro Co., NM
17
4.9%
Los Angeles Co., CA
16
4.6%
Kane Co., UT
4
1.1%
Washington Co., UT
4
1.1%
Other
30
8.6%
Total In-Commuters
350 100%
Out-Commuting from Beaver County
Workplace County
No. Share
Iron Co., UT
104 51.5%
Washington Co., UT
19 9.4%
Piute Co., UT
15 7.4%
Salt Lake Co., UT
15 7.4%
Clark Co., NV
12 5.9%
Garfield Co., UT
3 1.5%
Other
34 16.8%
Total Out-Commuters
202 100%
Net In-Commuters
148
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
49
Garfield County
Employment
Garfield County had the second slowest employment growth of the five southwest counties
from 1970 to 2006. Its average annual rate of increase was 2.3 percent and total growth was
129.7 percent. From 1970 to 2000, the county accounted for 2.7 percent of regional growth; but
from 2001 to 2006 it contributed only 0.7 percent. Employment in Garfield County as a share of
regional employment declined over the period. In 1970, Garfield County’s 984 jobs represented
10.3 percent of the southwest region’s total nonagricultural employment. By 2006, the county’s
share was less than a third of this, at 3.0 percent (Tables 2.19a and 2.19b).
In 1970, 90 percent of Garfield County employment was in four categories: government (33.5
percent), services (22.4 percent), manufacturing (20.7 percent), and trade (12.9 percent). By 2000,
government’s share had declined to 27.6 percent and manufacturing had fallen to 6.5 percent,
while services nearly doubled to 41.2 percent of all jobs. Trade’s employment share was almost
unchanged (at 13.6 percent), though the number of jobs in the industry had increased by 133
percent. In 2006, over 80 percent of employment was provided by leisure and hospitality
services (36.3 percent), government (26.3 percent), trade, transportation, and utilities (10.6
percent), and education and health services (9.2 percent).
From 1970 to 2000, the fastest-growing sectors were services, which more than quadrupled;
transportation, communications, and public utilities, which tripled; trade, up 133 percent; and
construction, which doubled its employment. In the 2001–06 period, most sectors grew.
Financial activity jobs increased 66.7 percent, employment in other services increased 50.0
percent, professional and business services employment was up 41.7 percent, and education and
health services grew by 36.2 percent. Even mining employment increased by 20.0 percent. Only
two sectors shrank over the period; manufacturing employment declined 15.5 percent and
government employment shrank 2.5 percent.
To compare Garfield County’s changing economic structure to that of the state, BEBR
calculated location quotients for 1970 through 2006 (Table 2.20). Values greater than 1.00
indicate relative specialization in the county. Compared with the state as a whole, Garfield
County has consistently had a higher concentration of government employment since at least
1970. The service industry has also been a rather consistent area of specialization in the county,
with a particularly strong emphasis on leisure and hospitality services—four times the statewide
share—becoming evident in 2001. This stems from the abundance of recreational opportunities
in the county, including Bryce Canyon and Capitol Reef national parks, Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area, and Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument. Beginning in 1997, a
specialization in the combined category of transportation, communications, and public utilities
began to emerge. This carried over into the NAICS information sector in 2001 and is due to
growing employment at the South Central Utah Telephone Association facility in Escalante.
Wages
Total real wages (adjusted for inflation) in Garfield County more than doubled from 1970 to
2006, from $24.1 million to $51.7 million (in constant 2006 dollars) (Table 2.21). The county’s
share of total wages in the region declined over the period, from 9.7 percent to 2.6 percent.
Inflation-adjusted average monthly wages declined 6.6 percent from 1970 to 2006, from $2,041
50
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.19a
Garfield County Nonagricultural Employment by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Change
Share of
Growth
Mining
Number Share
(D)
210
7
9
9
8
27
24
30
17
11
14
12
–94.3%
11.7%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
1.5%
1.3%
1.5%
0.8%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
Construction
Manufacturing
TCPU
Trade
Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share
34
3.5%
379 21.2%
23
1.6%
20
1.3%
31
2.0%
38
2.3%
61
3.4%
66
3.6%
41
2.1%
49
2.4%
49
2.4%
56
2.5%
70
3.2%
105.9%
3.0%
–51.3%
204
247
209
174
117
103
117
153
189
177
178
150
142
–30.4%
20.7%
13.8%
14.2%
11.6%
7.7%
6.3%
6.6%
8.3%
9.7%
8.6%
8.7%
6.8%
6.5%
46
84
59
56
64
66
87
101
112
131
149
169
137
197.8%
–5.2%
4.7%
4.7%
4.0%
3.7%
4.2%
4.1%
4.9%
5.5%
5.7%
6.3%
7.3%
7.7%
6.3%
127
128
189
205
234
233
254
250
266
305
298
307
296
133.1%
7.6%
12.9%
7.2%
12.8%
13.7%
15.3%
14.3%
14.4%
13.6%
13.6%
14.8%
14.5%
13.9%
13.6%
14.2%
FIRE
Services
(D)
16
22
23
22
21
20
19
19
20
23
22
20
25.0%
0.9%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.3%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.1%
1.0%
0.9%
220
267
506
532
576
665
688
709
767
827
804
923
897
307.7%
1.0%
Government
Number Share
22.4%
14.9%
34.3%
35.6%
37.7%
40.9%
38.9%
38.6%
39.3%
40.1%
39.2%
41.9%
41.2%
56.8%
330
458
459
477
474
492
515
517
530
537
539
563
601
82.1%
33.5%
25.6%
31.1%
31.9%
31.0%
30.3%
29.1%
28.1%
27.1%
26.0%
26.3%
25.5%
27.6%
Total
Share of
Region
984
1,789
1,474
1,496
1,527
1,626
1,769
1,839
1,954
2,063
2,051
2,204
2,175
121.0%
10.3%
11.1%
5.5%
5.2%
5.0%
4.8%
4.5%
4.3%
4.3%
4.3%
4.1%
4.2%
4.0%
100%
2.7%
22.8%
Notes: TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. (D) Data not reported to avoid disclosure of individual firm data; for these industries, change and
share of growth are for 1980–2000. Figure at intersection of Share of Growth row and Share of Region column is the county’s contribution to the region’s growth.
Table 2.19b
Garfield County Nonagricultural Employment by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Mining
Year
No.
2001
10
2002
9
2003
9
2004
7
2005
8
2006
12
Change 20.0%
Share of
1.5%
Growth
Share
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
No.
77
65
63
86
73
83
7.8%
4.6%
Share
3.6%
3.1%
3.0%
4.0%
3.3%
3.7%
No.
116
82
97
113
88
98
–15.5%
Share
5.4%
3.9%
4.7%
5.2%
3.9%
4.3%
–13.7%
TTU
Information
No.
Share
No.
208
206
214
229
240
239
14.9%
9.8%
9.9%
10.3%
10.5%
10.7%
10.6%
113
111
118
119
121
126
11.5%
23.7%
9.9%
Share
5.3%
5.3%
5.7%
5.5%
5.4%
5.6%
Financial
Activity
Services
Services
No. Share No. Share No. Share
21
24
27
32
33
35
66.7%
10.7%
1.0%
1.2%
1.3%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
12
14
15
9
11
17
41.7%
3.8%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.4%
0.5%
0.8%
152
137
146
160
187
207
36.2%
42.0%
7.1%
6.6%
7.0%
7.4%
8.4%
9.2%
Leisure &
Hospitality
No. Share
792
789
759
795
859
821
3.7%
37.2%
37.8%
36.6%
36.6%
38.4%
36.3%
22.1%
Other
Services
No. Share
18
29
28
27
26
27
50.0%
6.9%
0.8%
1.4%
1.3%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
Share
of
Share Total Region
Government
No.
610
619
599
598
591
595
–2.5%
–11.5%
28.7%
29.7%
28.9%
27.5%
26.4%
26.3%
2,129
2,085
2,075
2,175
2,237
2,260
6.2%
3.8%
3.6%
3.5%
3.4%
3.2%
3.0%
100%
0.7%
Note: TTU = Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. Figure at intersection of Share of Growth row and Share of Region column is the county’s contribution to the region’s growth.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
51
Table 2.20
Garfield County Location Quotients by Major Industry, 1970–2006
SIC Industry
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
1970 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
–
3.50
0.40
0.52
0.53
0.48 1.58 1.46 1.85 0.99 0.68 0.86 0.74
0.85
3.71
0.40
0.32
0.45
0.48 0.62 0.59 0.33 0.37 0.36 0.37 0.48
1.35
0.87
0.96
0.82
0.55
0.46 0.49 0.61 0.71 0.64 0.67 0.54 0.54
0.72
0.76
0.69
0.66
0.73
0.70 0.86 0.97 1.01 1.13 1.27 1.35 1.11
0.58
0.31
0.54
0.57
0.64
0.61 0.60 0.56 0.56 0.62 0.61 0.59 0.58
–
0.19
0.32
0.32
0.30
0.25 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.18 0.17
1.38
0.82
1.37
1.41
1.47
1.56 1.49 1.47 1.46 1.48 1.43 1.50 1.43
1.20
1.13
1.50
1.54
1.52
1.54 1.55 1.56 1.56 1.51 1.53 1.50 1.61
NAICS Industry
Construction
Manufacturing
TTU
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
0.70
0.67
0.70
0.50
0.48
0.55
0.49
0.48
0.60
0.46
0.48
0.37
0.45
0.50
0.39
0.48
0.49
0.52
0.53
0.55
1.71
1.84
2.04
2.00
1.93
0.17
0.20
0.22
0.25
0.25
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.71
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.75
4.09
4.03
3.94
3.96
4.23
0.30
0.45
0.45
0.42
0.40
1.63
1.63
1.58
1.53
1.50
2006
0.64
0.46
0.42
0.54
2.06
0.26
0.06
0.82
4.03
0.42
1.55
Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate specialization relative to the state. TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public
Table 2.21
Real Wage Trends in Garfield County, 1970–2006
1970
Share of Region
Share of State
vs. Region Average
vs. State Average
1980
1990
2000
2006
$24.1
$48.8 $33.4
$47.6
$51.7
9.7% 11.7%
5.4%
3.5%
2.6%
0.2%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
$2,041 $2,277 $1,889 $1,824 $1,906
95.0% 105.3% 97.8% 88.7% 85.6%
71.6% 83.0% 73.5% 64.5% 66.1%
Change
114.6%
–7.2%
–0.1%
–6.6%
–9.4%
–5.5%
to $1,906, respectively. In 1970, 1980, and 1990 monthly wages were within about 5 percent of
the regional average, but had slipped to about 86 percent of the average by 2006.
sector in the county, paying 41.8 percent of total wages (while accounting for 33.5 percent of
employment). The next closest industries were manufacturing and services, paying 24.5 percent
and 11.7 percent, respectively, while employing 20.7 percent and 22.4 percent. By 2000,
government had declined to 36.5 percent and manufacturing to 6.6 percent, but the service
sector was now paying nearly one-third of all nonagricultural wages. Wages in the transportation,
communications, and public utilities sector had grown to 11.2 percent of total wages (from 6.9
percent in 1970).
52
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.22a
Total Nonagricultural Wages in Garfield County by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
Year
Mining
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
Total
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
(D)
$3.4 17.1%
$0.2 1.1%
$0.3 1.6%
$0.3 1.2%
$0.3 1.1%
$0.7 2.7%
$0.4 1.4%
$0.6 2.0%
$0.4 1.2%
$0.4 1.1%
$0.5 1.3%
$0.5 1.2%
$0.2
5.5%
$4.9 24.6%
$0.3
1.6%
$0.3
1.2%
$0.4
1.7%
$0.6
2.5%
$1.1
4.0%
$1.7
5.9%
$0.7
2.0%
$0.7
2.1%
$0.8
2.1%
$0.9
2.4%
$1.4
3.4%
$1.1
$2.9
$4.1
$3.2
$2.4
$2.0
$2.1
$2.9
$3.5
$3.1
$3.3
$2.8
$2.7
24.5%
14.6%
19.2%
14.7%
10.8%
8.4%
7.9%
9.9%
10.8%
9.0%
8.9%
7.1%
6.6%
$0.3
$1.2
$1.4
$1.4
$1.5
$1.6
$2.3
$2.6
$3.1
$4.0
$4.4
$5.0
$4.5
6.9%
6.2%
6.4%
6.4%
6.7%
6.7%
8.7%
8.9%
9.6%
11.4%
12.1%
12.6%
11.2%
$0.3
$0.6
$1.3
$1.4
$1.6
$1.8
$2.1
$2.1
$2.3
$2.7
$2.9
$2.9
$2.8
6.8%
3.2%
6.1%
6.5%
7.0%
7.5%
8.0%
7.1%
7.2%
7.6%
7.8%
7.4%
7.0%
(D)
$0.2
$0.4
$0.3
$0.3
$0.3
$0.3
$0.3
$0.3
$0.3
$0.4
$0.4
$0.4
0.8%
1.7%
1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
1.0%
1.0%
0.9%
0.9%
1.1%
1.1%
1.0%
$0.5
$2.0
$6.3
$6.8
$7.4
$8.5
$8.4
$9.2
$10.7
$11.5
$11.6
$13.0
$13.4
11.7%
10.3%
29.4%
31.2%
33.3%
35.3%
31.3%
30.8%
32.9%
32.9%
31.6%
33.2%
33.1%
$1.9
$4.5
$7.4
$8.0
$8.4
$9.0
$9.8
$10.4
$11.3
$12.3
$13.0
$13.7
$14.8
41.8%
23.0%
34.7%
37.1%
37.8%
37.3%
36.4%
35.1%
34.8%
35.0%
35.3%
34.9%
36.5%
$4.5
$19.8
$21.4
$21.7
$22.3
$24.1
$26.9
$29.7
$32.4
$35.1
$36.7
$39.2
$40.5
$24.1
$48.8
$33.4
$32.5
$32.2
$33.9
$37.0
$39.8
$42.3
$44.7
$45.9
$47.7
$47.6
Table 2.22b
Total Nonagricultural Wages in Garfield County by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Financial
Prof. & Bus.
Ed. & Health
Leisure &
Other
Total
Government
Activity
Services
Services
Hospitality
Services
Mining
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$0.4
$0.4
$0.4
$0.4
$0.4
$0.6
1.1%
1.0%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
1.1%
$1.4
$1.4
$1.2
$2.3
$1.7
$1.8
3.4%
3.5%
2.9%
4.9%
3.5%
3.4%
$2.2
$1.6
$1.8
$2.0
$1.6
$1.9
5.4%
3.8%
4.4%
4.4%
3.2%
3.6%
TTU
$3.2 8.0%
$3.4 8.2%
$3.6 8.7%
$4.0 8.6%
$5.0 10.2%
$5.0 9.7%
Information
$3.6 8.9%
$3.8 9.3%
$4.3 10.3%
$4.5 9.6%
$4.7 9.8%
$5.1 9.9%
$0.4
$0.5
$0.5
$0.6
$0.7
$0.9
1.0%
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
1.5%
1.7%
$0.1
$0.2
$0.3
$0.2
$0.2
$0.3
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.7%
$3.0 7.4%
$3.0 7.3%
$3.2 7.7%
$3.8 8.1%
$4.4 9.2%
$5.9 11.4%
$10.0
$10.2
$10.4
$11.6
$12.3
$11.9
24.6%
24.8%
24.8%
25.0%
25.3%
23.0%
$0.3
$0.3
$0.4
$0.3
$0.3
$0.4
0.6%
0.8%
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
$15.9
$16.4
$15.7
$16.9
$17.1
$18.0
39.2%
39.7%
37.6%
36.3%
35.3%
34.8%
$40.4
$41.3
$41.8
$46.6
$48.5
$51.7
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
53
$45.9
$46.0
$45.6
$49.7
$50.2
$51.7
Table 2.23a
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Garfield County
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Mining
$596
$1,346
$2,726
$3,148
$2,556
$2,760
$2,284
$1,472
$1,761
$2,064
$3,106
$3,060
$3,271
Const.
Mfg.
TCPU
$601
$1,071
$1,203
$1,079
$1,030
$1,322
$1,471
$2,207
$1,321
$1,236
$1,304
$1,408
$1,629
$447
$972
$1,632
$1,530
$1,712
$1,629
$1,518
$1,597
$1,539
$1,482
$1,530
$1,546
$1,576
$557
$1,214
$1,935
$2,057
$1,941
$2,045
$2,234
$2,179
$2,315
$2,537
$2,484
$2,445
$2,748
Trade
FIRE
$200
$420
$571
$569
$553
$643
$703
$699
$732
$731
$797
$787
$795
Services Gov’t.
$335
$833
$1,345
$1,087
$1,178
$1,194
$1,150
$1,272
$1,232
$1,354
$1,413
$1,587
$1,667
$199
$640
$1,034
$1,062
$1,073
$1,067
$1,021
$1,076
$1,158
$1,162
$1,199
$1,175
$1,245
Total Average
Current $
Constant $
$379
$922
$1,208
$1,209
$1,215
$1,235
$1,269
$1,346
$1,383
$1,418
$1,489
$1,482
$1,550
$2,041
$2,277
$1,889
$1,811
$1,760
$1,737
$1,745
$1,804
$1,806
$1,807
$1,864
$1,805
$1,824
$472
$828
$1,345
$1,405
$1,481
$1,520
$1,588
$1,681
$1,773
$1,907
$2,003
$2,024
$2,050
Table 2.23b
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Garfield County by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Year
Mining Const.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$3,585
$3,815
$3,675
$4,316
$4,261
$4,063
$1,508
$1,838
$1,590
$2,232
$1,951
$1,767
Mfg.
TTU
Info.
Fin’l.
Act.
Bus. Health & Hosp.
Other
Svcs.
Gov’t.
$1,559
$1,586
$1,566
$1,497
$1,477
$1,580
$1,288
$1,370
$1,415
$1,459
$1,725
$1,757
$2,656
$2,879
$3,052
$3,143
$3,261
$3,376
$1,641
$1,625
$1,456
$1,488
$1,866
$2,046
$868
$1,093
$1,414
$1,907
$1,572
$1,678
$1,204
$999
$1,127
$1,054
$1,053
$1,097
$2,168
$2,211
$2,184
$2,358
$2,417
$2,519
$1,643
$1,837
$1,838
$1,959
$1,980
$2,369
$1,049
$1,082
$1,139
$1,220
$1,193
$1,209
Total Average
$1,583
$1,651
$1,678
$1,787
$1,808
$1,906
By 2006 (Table 2.22b), under the NAICS industry classification system, government’s share of
total wages had declined slightly to 34.8 percent (still the largest), and leisure and hospitality
services paid almost one-quarter of all wages. TTU (trade, transportation, and utilities),
information, and education and health services each accounted for about one-tenth of wages.
Since at least 1970, mining jobs have generally paid the highest monthly wages in Garfield
County (Tables 2.23a and 2.23b). Other high-paying sectors have been TCPU (transportation,
communications, and public utilities), manufacturing, and government. Since 2001, information,
education and health services, and construction have also been among the top-wage industries.
Occupations
To get a better picture of what Garfield County residents do, BEBR looked at the Census
Bureau’s occupational distribution of the civilian workforce aged 16 and older, which is given by
place of residence (Table 2.24).
54
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
$1,797
$1,839
$1,830
$1,905
$1,870
$1,906
Nearly one-third of employed county residents in 2000 worked in management, professional,
and related occupations. A further 22.8 percent worked in service occupations and 21.0 percent
in sales and office occupations. One-eighth were engaged in construction, extraction, and
maintenance occupations, and 5.9 percent were in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations,
including farmers and farm managers. Among women, 19.6 percent were employed in office and
Table 2.24
Occupational Distribution by Sex for Employed Residents of Garfield County,
2000
Occupation
Legal occupations
Service occupations
Extraction workers
Total
2,003
32.0%
14.8%
9.3%
2.7%
2.7%
1.4%
1.3%
17.2%
0.7%
0.8%
0.6%
0.1%
1.4%
1.7%
0.7%
8.6%
1.4%
1.8%
1.3%
0.5%
22.8%
1.5%
3.4%
1.9%
1.5%
8.3%
6.9%
2.5%
21.0%
10.6%
10.4%
3.2%
12.5%
6.9%
1.4%
5.0%
0.4%
5.6%
8.6%
4.3%
4.2%
0.0%
0.1%
2.2%
0.2%
1.6%
Male Female
1,098
905
30.0%
34.4%
17.6%
11.4%
9.6%
9.1%
4.7%
0.2%
3.3%
2.1%
2.2%
0.4%
1.1%
1.7%
12.4%
23.0%
1.3%
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
2.1%
0.6%
1.9%
1.4%
1.2%
0.2%
3.6%
14.6%
0.5%
2.5%
0.4%
3.6%
0.4%
2.5%
0.0%
1.1%
18.3%
28.2%
0.3%
3.1%
5.6%
0.8%
3.2%
0.3%
2.5%
0.4%
5.1%
12.3%
5.2%
9.0%
2.1%
3.1%
11.2%
32.9%
8.3%
13.4%
2.9%
19.6%
5.6%
0.2%
22.5%
0.3%
12.4%
0.2%
2.5%
0.2%
9.2%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
10.1%
0.1%
12.4%
4.0%
5.5%
3.0%
6.9%
1.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
2.6%
0.6%
Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for the rest of the state (excluding Garfield County).
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
55
administrative support occupations, 14.6 percent were in education, training, and library
occupations, 13.4 percent were in sales and related occupations, and 12.3 percent were in food
preparation and serving. Garfield County men were employed roughly equally in construction
(11.7 percent), installation, maintenance, and repair (10.1 percent), and management occupations
(9.6 percent, excluding farmers and farm managers).
Major Employers
In 2006, the largest employers in Garfield County were Ruby’s Inn, which has since become its
own municipality, Bryce Canyon City; South Central Utah Telephone, responsible for the
county’s relatively high location quotient in the information industry; Skyline Forest Resources
sawmill; and Intermountain Healthcare’s Garfield Memorial Hospital (Table 2.25). Because
about 30 percent of the county is Forest Service land, the lumber industry has long been an
important source of jobs.
Table 2.25
Major Employers in Garfield County, 1970–2006
Company
Industry
Kaibab Industries
Utah Parks Co.—Bryce Canyon
Garfield School District
Utah Apparel Industries
Steed Enterprises
1970
Manufacturing
Service Industries
Service Industries
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Employees
150
120
110
30
30
Federal/State/Local Gov’t.
Kaibab Industries
Garfield School District
Plateau Resources
Transworld Airlines
Garfield County Hospital
Southern Utah Industries
Escalante Sawmill
1980
Manufacturing
Service Industries
Mining
Service Industries
Service Industries
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
225
150
145
135
120
55
45
40
Escalante Sawmills Inc
Ruby’s Inn
TW Recreational Services
Kaibab Industries
1990
Manufacturing
Service Industries
Service Industries
Manufacturing
Utah Forest Products Inc.
South Central Utah Telephone
Garfield Memorial Hospital
2000
Manufacturing
Service Industries
Ruby’s Inn
South Central Utah Telephone
Skyline Forest Resources Inc.
Garfield Memorial Hospital
2006
Information
Manufacturing
100-199
100-199
100-199
50–99
50–99
50–99
50–99
50–99
250–499
100–249
50–99
50–99
56
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Commute Patterns
Garfield County (Table 2.26), like most counties in the region, experienced net out-commuting
in 2000, with 65 more commuters leaving the county than came in. Among sources of incommuters to Garfield, Piute County sent 30 (21.1 percent) and Kane County sent 27 (19.0
percent). Iron and Beaver counties sent 14 (9.9 percent) and 3 (2.1 percent), respectively. About
15 percent of in-commuters came from out of state and Coconino County, Ariz. (as well as
Ramsey County, Minn., included in “Other”) was the main source, supplying 9, or 6.3 percent of
total in-commuters. The main destinations of Garfield out-commuters were San Juan County
and Iron County, claiming 52 (25.1 percent) and 45 (21.7 percent), respectively. Elsewhere in the
region, 12 workers (5.8 percent) commuted to Washington County and four commuted to Kane
County. About 14 percent of out-commuters worked out of state; the most significant
destination was Clark County, Nev., where 10 Garfield County residents worked (4.8 percent of
out-commuters).
Table 2.26
Garfield County Summary Commute Flows, 2000
In-Commuting to Garfield County
Residence County
No. Share
Piute Co., UT
30 21.1%
Kane Co., UT
27 19.0%
Iron Co., UT
14
9.9%
Salt Lake Co., UT
12
8.5%
Coconino Co., AZ
9
6.3%
Beaver Co., UT
3
2.1%
Other
47 33.1%
Total In-Commuters
142 100%
Net Out-Commuters
65
Out-Commuting from Garfield County
Workplace County
No. Share
San Juan Co., UT
52 25.1%
Iron Co., UT
45 21.7%
Utah Co., UT
26 12.6%
Sevier Co., UT
16
7.7%
Washington Co., UT
12
5.8%
Clark Co., NV
10
4.8%
Salt Lake Co., UT
10
4.8%
Kane Co., UT
4
1.9%
Other
32 15.5%
Total Out-Commuters
207 100%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
57
Iron County
Employment
Employment in Iron County increased more than four-fold, 338.8 percent, from 1970 to 2006
for an average annual rate of increase of 4.2 percent. From 1970 to 2000, the county accounted
for 22.8 percent of regional growth; from 2001 to 2006 it contributed 14.9 percent (Tables 2.27a
and 2.27b). Iron County is the second largest employment center in the region, though with
Washington County’s much faster growth (8 percent annually from 1970 to 2006) Iron’s share of
total regional employment has declined from 40.0 percent in 1970 to 22.2 percent in 2006.
Like all the counties in the southwest region, government is a major employer in Iron County. In
1970 it provided 34.8 percent of nonagricultural jobs; trade and services were the other major
sectors with 23.7 percent and 12.8 percent, respectively. By 2000, government’s share had
declined to 26.7 percent, services had doubled to 26.0 percent, and trade’s employment share
was almost unchanged at 22.7 percent. Together, these three sectors accounted for more than
three-quarters of the county’s job growth. Over this period, manufacturing jobs grew from 8.2
percent to 12.2 percent of total employment, while mining jobs plummeted from 7.1 percent to
0.4 percent. In 2006, the four NAICS service sector groupings (professional and business,
education and health, leisure and hospitality, and other) together accounted for 29.8 percent of
total employment. Government provided 25.0 percent of jobs, trade, transportation, and utilities
provided 18.0 percent, and construction 10.9 percent. Manufacturing also represented just over
one-tenth of nonagricultural jobs (10.8 percent). Mining employment saw a significant jump in
2006 to 58 jobs from seven in 2005 and 3 in 2002–04.
The fastest-growing sectors from 1970 to 2000 were services, up 646.1 percent; construction,
which increased 482.8 percent; and manufacturing, up 447.6 percent. The latter two contributed
7.1 percent and 13.7 percent, respectively, of total job growth over the period, while services was
the greatest growth driver of all sectors with 30.9 percent. Only mining declined, losing 78.7
percent of its 1970 employment level. In the 2001–06 period, construction employment grew
111.9 percent, mining jobs grew 70.6 percent, and financial activity and education and health
services both increased by about half. Only one sector saw employment losses: professional and
business services were down 23.1 percent. The major contributors to employment growth in the
period were construction (34.1 percent of new jobs), education and health services (18.4
percent), and trade, transportation, and utilities (16.7 percent). Leisure and hospitality,
manufacturing, and government each accounted for about 10 percent of Iron’s 2001–06
employment growth.
To compare Iron County’s changing economic structure to that of the state, BEBR calculated
specialization in the county. In 1970, Iron County showed significant specializations in mining
and government, relative to the state as a whole. By 2000, only the specialization in government
remained and no new concentrations had developed. In 2001, under the NAICS classification
system, leisure and hospitality services emerged as an additional, modest specialization. By 2006,
a specialization in construction also developed, as well as a slight concentration in
manufacturing, while that in leisure and hospitality services continued and the concentration in
government weakened.
58
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.27a
Iron County Nonagricultural Employment by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
Mining
Construction
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Change
Share of
Growth
272
158
156
62
28
31
17
87
74
52
54
63
58
–78.7%
7.1%
2.8%
2.0%
0.8%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
151
290
215
245
419
463
579
693
745
778
767
937
880
482.8%
–2.1%
Manufacturing
Number Share
3.9%
5.1%
2.8%
3.1%
4.9%
5.0%
5.6%
6.1%
6.3%
6.1%
5.7%
6.9%
6.3%
7.1%
313
451
723
719
864
857
970
1,203
1,360
1,675
1,793
1,810
1,714
447.6%
TCPU
Trade
8.2%
8.0%
9.4%
9.0%
10.1%
9.2%
9.4%
10.7%
11.5%
13.1%
13.4%
13.3%
12.2%
253
410
412
328
303
295
329
350
351
350
363
351
358
41.5%
13.7%
6.6%
7.2%
5.4%
4.1%
3.5%
3.2%
3.2%
3.1%
3.0%
2.7%
2.7%
2.6%
2.5%
1.0%
906
1,513
2,065
2,179
2,381
2,584
2,723
2,891
2,997
3,164
3,241
3,156
3,190
252.1%
23.7%
26.7%
27.0%
27.3%
27.9%
27.8%
26.4%
25.6%
25.3%
24.8%
24.2%
23.2%
22.7%
22.3%
FIRE
Services
112
296
209
234
241
274
322
333
400
416
468
455
454
305.4%
2.9%
5.2%
2.7%
2.9%
2.8%
2.9%
3.1%
3.0%
3.4%
3.3%
3.5%
3.3%
3.2%
490
657
1,533
1,645
1,732
1,990
2,354
2,598
2,671
2,933
3,114
3,190
3,656
646.1%
3.3%
12.8%
11.6%
20.0%
20.6%
20.3%
21.4%
22.8%
23.0%
22.5%
23.0%
23.3%
23.4%
26.0%
30.9%
Government
Number Share
1,333
1,887
2,342
2,569
2,581
2,796
3,023
3,125
3,248
3,392
3,565
3,655
3,760
182.1%
34.8%
33.3%
30.6%
32.2%
30.2%
30.1%
29.3%
27.7%
27.4%
26.6%
26.7%
26.8%
26.7%
23.7%
Total
Share of
Region
3,830
5,662
7,655
7,981
8,549
9,290
10,317
11,280
11,846
12,760
13,365
13,617
14,070
267.4%
40.0%
35.3%
28.5%
27.9%
27.9%
27.4%
26.4%
26.3%
25.9%
26.5%
26.5%
26.0%
25.8%
100%
22.8%
Note: TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. Figure at intersection of Share of Growth row and Share of Region column is the county’s
contribution to the region’s growth.
Table 2.27b
Iron County Nonagricultural Employment by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Mining
Year
No.
2001
34
2002
3
2003
3
2004
3
2005
7
2006
58
Change 70.6%
Share of
0.8%
Growth
Share
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
No.
Share
No.
868 6.2% 1,496
885 6.3% 1,446
909 6.4% 1,497
1,029 7.0% 1,598
1,429 9.1% 1,705
1,839 10.9% 1,785
111.9%
19.3%
34.1%
Share
10.7%
10.3%
10.6%
10.8%
10.8%
10.6%
10.2%
TTU
Information
No.
Share
No.
2,546
2,490
2,569
2,677
2,865
3,022
18.7%
18.2%
17.7%
18.2%
18.1%
18.2%
18.0%
110
129
110
95
101
123
11.8%
16.7%
0.5%
Share
0.8%
0.9%
0.8%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
Financial
Activity
No. Share
513
576
604
577
643
784
52.8%
9.5%
3.7%
4.1%
4.3%
3.9%
4.1%
4.7%
Services
Services
No.
Share No. Share
1,654 11.8% 1,066
1,674 11.9% 1,177
1,317 9.3% 1,221
1,329 9.0% 1,311
1,339 8.5% 1,421
1,272 7.6% 1,591
–23.1%
49.2%
–13.4%
18.4%
7.6%
8.3%
8.7%
8.9%
9.0%
9.5%
Leisure &
Hospitality
No. Share
1,494
1,514
1,563
1,686
1,806
1,804
20.7%
10.7%
10.7%
11.1%
11.4%
11.4%
10.7%
10.9%
Other
Government
Services
No. Share No. Share
265
323
337
304
326
334
26.0%
2.4%
1.9%
2.3%
2.4%
2.1%
2.1%
2.0%
3,914
3,890
3,978
4,166
4,140
4,194
7.2%
9.8%
28.0%
27.6%
28.2%
28.2%
26.2%
25.0%
Share
of
Total Region
13,960
14,107
14,108
14,775
15,782
16,806
20.4%
24.7%
24.3%
23.6%
22.9%
22.5%
22.2%
100%
14.9%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
59
Table 2.28
Iron County Location Quotients by Major Industry, 1970–2006
SIC Industry
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
1970 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2.01
0.83
1.71
0.67
0.30
0.32 0.17 0.86 0.75 0.49 0.51 0.62 0.55
0.97
0.90
0.73
0.73
1.08
1.02 1.00 1.02 1.00 0.94 0.86 1.00 0.94
0.53
0.50
0.64
0.63
0.73
0.68 0.69 0.78 0.85 0.98 1.03 1.05 1.00
1.02
1.17
0.92
0.72
0.62
0.55 0.56 0.55 0.52 0.49 0.48 0.45 0.45
1.06
1.15
1.13
1.14
1.16
1.18 1.10 1.06 1.05 1.03 1.02 0.98 0.97
0.70
1.12
0.58
0.61
0.58
0.58 0.58 0.56 0.64 0.62 0.65 0.62 0.60
0.79
0.64
0.80
0.81
0.79
0.82 0.87 0.88 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.90
1.25
1.47
1.47
1.56
1.48
1.53 1.56 1.54 1.57 1.54 1.56 1.58 1.56
NAICS Industry
Construction
Manufacturing
TTU
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0.37
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.41
0.94
0.99
1.02
1.06
1.27
1.38
0.95
0.97
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.04
0.90
0.88
0.91
0.91
0.92
0.92
0.25
0.32
0.28
0.23
0.23
0.27
0.64
0.69
0.71
0.66
0.69
0.79
0.94
0.97
0.76
0.72
0.66
0.59
0.75
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.80
0.85
1.18
1.14
1.19
1.24
1.26
1.19
0.67
0.75
0.79
0.69
0.71
0.69
1.60
1.52
1.54
1.57
1.49
1.47
Wages
Total inflation-adjusted wages in Iron County quadrupled from 1970 to 2006, from $103.7
million to $414.4 million (in constant 2006 dollars) (Table 2.29). In spite of this growth, the
county’s share of total wages in the region declined over the period, from 42.0 percent to 20.5
percent. Inflation-adjusted average monthly wages also declined, by 8.9 percent, from $2,256 to
$2,055. In 1970, 1980, and 1990 monthly wages in Iron County were above the regional average,
but by 2000 they had slipped below and were 92.2 percent of the average in 2006.
Table 2.29
Real Wage Trends in Iron County, 1970–2006
1970
Share of Region
Share of State
vs. Region Average
vs. State Average
1980
1990
2000
2006
$103.7 $154.0 $183.9 $323.7 $414.4
42.0%
37.0% 29.5% 24.1% 20.5%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
1.0%
$2,256 $2,269 $2,002 $1,917 $2,055
105.0% 104.9% 103.6% 93.3% 92.2%
79.2%
82.7% 77.9% 67.8% 71.3%
Change
299.6%
–21.5%
0.1%
–8.9%
–12.8%
–7.9%
sector in the county, paying 35.5 percent of total wages. The next closest industries were trade
and mining, paying 19.1 percent and 11.8 percent, respectively. By 2000, government’s share had
declined to 31.1 percent, trade to 16.7 percent, and mining to 0.7 percent. However, service
sector wages now accounted for 19.9 percent of total wages (up from 7.2 percent in 1970) and
manufacturing paid 16.2 percent (up from 7.8 percent).
60
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.30a
Total Nonagricultural Wages in Iron County by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Mining
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share
$2.3 11.8%
$3.9 6.2%
$5.2 4.5%
$1.7 1.4%
$1.2 0.9%
$1.3 0.9%
$1.1 0.6%
$2.5 1.3%
$2.6 1.3%
$1.5 0.6%
$1.4 0.6%
$1.8 0.7%
$2.1 0.7%
$1.2
$3.9
$3.2
$3.8
$10.0
$9.2
$9.3
$11.7
$12.8
$14.6
$14.9
$17.8
$18.8
6.2%
6.2%
2.7%
3.2%
7.4%
6.2%
5.6%
6.2%
6.2%
6.3%
5.9%
6.8%
6.8%
$1.5
$5.0
$12.9
$13.9
$16.8
$18.3
$21.6
$27.1
$31.3
$38.1
$43.7
$45.1
$44.7
7.8%
8.0%
10.9%
11.6%
12.5%
12.5%
13.0%
14.3%
15.1%
16.5%
17.4%
17.1%
16.2%
$1.9 9.8%
$8.1 13.1%
$14.3 12.2%
$9.7 8.2%
$8.2 6.1%
$9.2 6.2%
$10.6 6.4%
$11.5 6.1%
$11.3 5.4%
$12.3 5.3%
$12.6 5.0%
$12.6 4.8%
$13.3 4.8%
$3.7
$11.2
$20.9
$23.6
$25.8
$28.8
$32.5
$35.0
$37.2
$41.4
$43.9
$45.7
$46.0
19.1%
18.0%
17.8%
19.8%
19.2%
19.6%
19.5%
18.5%
18.0%
17.9%
17.5%
17.4%
16.7%
$0.5
$3.0
$3.1
$3.5
$3.9
$4.5
$5.5
$6.3
$8.1
$8.7
$10.0
$10.1
$9.8
2.6%
4.9%
2.6%
3.0%
2.9%
3.1%
3.3%
3.3%
3.9%
3.8%
4.0%
3.8%
3.6%
$1.4
$6.0
$18.4
$20.1
$22.5
$26.1
$30.4
$35.4
$38.1
$43.8
$47.0
$49.2
$54.9
7.2%
9.7%
15.6%
16.9%
16.7%
17.8%
18.2%
18.7%
18.4%
18.9%
18.7%
18.7%
19.9%
$6.8
$21.2
$39.6
$42.7
$46.3
$49.8
$55.7
$60.1
$65.5
$70.9
$77.0
$80.9
$85.6
35.5%
34.0%
33.7%
35.9%
34.4%
33.8%
33.4%
31.7%
31.7%
30.7%
30.7%
30.7%
31.1%
Total
Current $
$19.3
$62.4
$117.6
$119.0
$134.5
$147.1
$166.7
$189.5
$206.9
$231.2
$250.6
$263.2
$275.1
Constant $
$103.7
$154.0
$183.9
$178.2
$194.9
$206.9
$229.2
$254.0
$270.1
$294.7
$313.5
$320.5
$323.7
Notes: TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. Constant-dollar figures are in 2006 dollars.
Table 2.30b
Total Nonagricultural Wages in Iron County by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Financial
Leisure &
Other
Total
Government
Activity
Services
Services
Hospitality
Services
Mining
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$1.2
$0.1
$0.1
$0.1
$0.2
$1.2
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
$18.4 6.5%
$19.3 6.5%
$20.7 6.9%
$24.1 7.4%
$35.6 9.8%
$48.7 11.7%
$42.2
$40.5
$41.8
$47.3
$50.9
$54.7
14.9%
13.7%
14.0%
14.5%
14.0%
13.2%
TTU
$51.4
$52.2
$54.3
$58.1
$65.5
$74.1
18.2%
17.7%
18.1%
17.9%
18.1%
17.9%
Information
$2.5
$2.8
$2.5
$2.0
$2.5
$2.9
0.9%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
$11.5
$14.5
$17.2
$17.7
$22.4
$28.7
4.1%
4.9%
5.7%
5.4%
6.2%
6.9%
$24.7
$25.4
$19.1
$19.3
$22.5
$27.3
8.7%
8.6%
6.4%
5.9%
6.2%
6.6%
$20.1
$22.3
$23.7
$26.4
$28.6
$36.4
7.1%
7.5%
7.9%
8.1%
7.9%
8.8%
$13.0
$14.4
$15.2
$16.2
$18.6
$19.1
4.6%
4.9%
5.1%
5.0%
5.1%
4.6%
$4.7
$6.0
$6.3
$6.4
$7.0
$7.7
1.7%
$93.2 32.9%
2.0%
$98.1 33.2%
2.1%
$98.5 32.9%
2.0% $107.8 33.1%
1.9% $108.7 30.0%
1.9% $113.7 27.4%
$283.0
$295.8
$299.4
$325.4
$362.5
$414.4
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
61
$321.3
$329.5
$326.5
$346.8
$374.9
$414.4
Table 2.31a
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Iron County
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Mining
$695
$2,040
$2,802
$2,258
$3,449
$3,403
$5,167
$2,434
$2,925
$2,372
$2,235
$2,362
$2,953
Const.
Mfg.
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
$655
$1,115
$1,223
$1,304
$1,991
$1,647
$1,333
$1,403
$1,433
$1,559
$1,618
$1,587
$1,777
$401
$922
$1,483
$1,605
$1,618
$1,784
$1,857
$1,876
$1,918
$1,898
$2,032
$2,077
$2,172
$625
$1,655
$2,895
$2,471
$2,242
$2,585
$2,682
$2,731
$2,676
$2,925
$2,884
$2,993
$3,097
$339
$618
$845
$903
$904
$928
$996
$1,009
$1,034
$1,090
$1,129
$1,206
$1,203
$375
$855
$1,234
$1,254
$1,338
$1,367
$1,420
$1,577
$1,693
$1,742
$1,784
$1,841
$1,798
Services Gov’t.
$235
$773
$999
$1,017
$1,081
$1,094
$1,077
$1,134
$1,190
$1,243
$1,257
$1,285
$1,251
Total Average
Current $
Constant $
$419
$919
$1,280
$1,242
$1,311
$1,319
$1,346
$1,400
$1,456
$1,510
$1,562
$1,611
$1,629
$2,256
$2,269
$2,002
$1,861
$1,900
$1,856
$1,851
$1,876
$1,900
$1,925
$1,955
$1,961
$1,917
$427
$935
$1,408
$1,385
$1,494
$1,483
$1,536
$1,602
$1,680
$1,743
$1,800
$1,845
$1,896
Table 2.31b
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Iron County by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Year
Mining Const.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$2,889
$1,880
$2,469
$2,543
$2,968
$1,766
$1,763
$1,821
$1,893
$1,956
$2,078
$2,206
Mfg.
TTU
Info.
Fin’l.
Act.
Bus. Health & Hosp.
Other
Svcs.
Gov’t.
$2,352
$2,336
$2,328
$2,464
$2,488
$2,554
$1,684
$1,748
$1,762
$1,808
$1,906
$2,043
$1,908
$1,825
$1,922
$1,774
$2,037
$1,971
$1,875
$2,102
$2,367
$2,555
$2,902
$3,046
$1,246
$1,266
$1,208
$1,210
$1,401
$1,790
$1,474
$1,543
$1,561
$1,765
$1,787
$1,917
$1,985
$2,102
$2,063
$2,157
$2,187
$2,258
$1,568
$1,580
$1,620
$1,679
$1,677
$1,906
$727
$795
$808
$799
$858
$883
Total Average
$1,689
$1,748
$1,768
$1,835
$1,914
$2,055
By 2006 (Table 2.30b), under the NAICS industry classification system, government’s share of
total wages had declined to 27.4 percent, though it was still the largest; trade, transportation, and
utilities paid 17.9 percent and manufacturing paid 13.2 percent. The service sectors combined
paid 21.9 percent of total wages, with education and health services, professional and business
services, and leisure and hospitality services contributing the larger shares.
From 1970 through 1994, mining jobs tended to have the highest monthly wages in Iron
County, followed closely by those in the transportation, communications, and public utilities
(TCPU) sector (Table 2.31a). In 1995 this situation switched, with TCPU jobs paying the highest
wages followed by mining. From 2001 to 2006, under the NAICS classification, mining,
manufacturing, and financial activity jobs paid the highest wages, with the government,
information, and construction sectors also paying above-average wages (Table 2.32b). As of
62
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
$1,918
$1,946
$1,929
$1,956
$1,980
$2,055
2006, financial activity jobs paid the highest wages, while leisure and hospitality jobs paid the
lowest.
Occupations
To get a better picture of what Iron County residents do, BEBR looked at the Census Bureau’s
occupational distribution of the civilian workforce aged 16 and older, which is given by place of
residence (Table 2.32).
In 2000, nearly equal shares of county residents worked in management, professional, and
related occupations (27.5 percent) and in sales and office occupations (28.5 percent). About 16
percent of the population were engaged in service occupations, and 13 percent in both
construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations and production, transportation, and
material-moving occupations. Iron County women were highly concentrated in sales and office
occupations (40.6 percent), with 23.3 percent in office and administrative support occupations
and 17.3 percent in sales and related occupations. A further 12.1 percent of women were
employed in education, training, and library occupations. Iron County men were more evenly
distributed among the occupations; 15.4 percent worked in construction, 14.2 percent were in
sales and related occupations, 9.4 percent in transportation and material-moving occupations, 9.1
percent in management occupations (excluding farmers and farm managers), and 8.5 percent in
production occupations.
Major Employers
Southern Utah University is of course a major employer in Iron County, if not the largest single
employer, but there is also a significant manufacturing cluster in Iron (Table 2.33). As early as
1970, the Coleman Co. was one of the county’s major employers. Interstate 15 and the Union
Pacific rail line, running west and south through Las Vegas to Los Angeles and north to Salt
Lake City, have supported this industry’s growth in the county.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
63
Table 2.32
Occupational Distribution by Sex for Employed Residents of Iron County, 2000
Occupation
Legal occupations
Service occupations
Extraction workers
Total
15,484
27.5%
10.6%
6.9%
1.3%
2.5%
0.9%
1.6%
16.8%
0.8%
1.3%
0.7%
0.6%
0.7%
1.4%
0.4%
8.4%
1.1%
2.7%
1.9%
0.8%
16.2%
1.7%
1.0%
0.6%
0.5%
6.6%
4.3%
2.7%
28.5%
15.6%
12.9%
1.7%
13.0%
9.0%
1.2%
7.5%
0.2%
4.1%
13.1%
7.3%
5.8%
0.3%
0.3%
3.0%
0.1%
2.1%
Male Female
8,484
7,000
26.7%
28.3%
13.1%
7.6%
9.1%
4.2%
2.2%
0.1%
1.8%
3.3%
0.6%
1.3%
1.2%
2.1%
13.6%
20.7%
1.2%
0.2%
1.8%
0.6%
1.0%
0.3%
0.8%
0.3%
0.9%
0.6%
1.1%
1.8%
0.2%
0.7%
5.4%
12.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.9%
3.7%
1.6%
2.2%
0.3%
1.5%
11.2%
22.4%
0.4%
3.2%
1.4%
0.6%
0.9%
0.2%
0.5%
0.4%
3.8%
9.9%
4.6%
3.9%
0.9%
4.8%
18.5%
40.6%
14.2%
17.3%
4.3%
23.3%
2.5%
0.8%
23.1%
0.8%
15.7%
0.7%
2.2%
0.0%
13.2%
0.6%
0.3%
0.1%
7.4%
0.1%
18.0%
7.1%
8.5%
5.7%
9.4%
1.4%
0.5%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
4.9%
0.8%
0.2%
0.0%
3.3%
0.5%
Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for the rest of the state (excluding Iron County).
64
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.33
Major Employers in Iron County, 1970–2006
Company
Industry
Southern Utah State College
Coleman Co.
Iron County School District
Utah Construction & Mining Co.
Valley View Medical Center
1970
Service Industries
Manufacturing
Service Industries
Construction and Mining Industries
Service Industries
Employees
454
245
217
198
138
Southern Utah State College
Federal/State/County Gov’t.
Utah International Inc.
Coleman Company
1980
Service Industries
Service Industries
Mining
Service Industries
Manufacturing
665
600
415
165
120
100
Coleman Outdoor Products Inc.
Goer Manufacturing Co.
Wecco
Utah Power & Light
Albertsons
Matrixx Marketing
1990
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Retail Trade
Service Industries
Service Industries
100-199
100-199
100-199
100-199
100-199
100-199
100-199
Coleman Co. Inc.
Metalcraft Technologies Inc.
O’Sullivan Industries Inc.
Smead Manufacturing Co.
Western Electrochemical Co.
2000
Service Industries
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
500–999
100-499
100-499
100-499
100-499
100-499
Smead Manufacturing Co.
Wal-Mart
Convergys Cust. Mgmt.
Brian Head Resort
Milgro Newcastle Inc.
American Pacific Corp.
Genpak LLC
Metalcraft Technologies Inc.
Home Depot USA Inc.
Lin’s Supermarket Inc.
Leavitt Group Enterprises Inc.
CC Nursing Home LLC
Cedar City Corporation
2006
Manufacturing
Retail Trade
Admin. & Support and Waste Mgmt. & Remed. Svcs.
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Finance and Insurance
500–999
250–499
250–499
250–499
250–499
250–499
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
65
Commute Patterns
Iron County had net out-commuting of 357 workers in 2000 (Table 2.34). Washington County
was not only the largest source of in-commuters to Iron, sending 544 or 53.9 percent of all incommuters, it was also the main destination of out-commuters, attracting 677 or 49.5 percent of
out-commuters. Beaver County was the second largest source and destination, sending 104
workers (10.3 percent) and receiving 187 workers (13.7 percent). Garfield and Kane counties
sent 4.5 percent and 1.1 percent of in-commuters, respectively, and received 1.0 percent and 2.7
percent of out-commuters, respectively. Only 6.7 percent of in-commuters came from out of
state and Coconino County, Ariz., was the largest source. It sent 12, accounting for 1.2 percent
of all in-commuters. One in five out-commuters worked out of state, and major destinations
included Clark County, Nev. (109 or 8.0 percent of all out-commuters), San Juan County, N.M.
(26 or 1.9 percent), and Orange County, Calif. (25 or 1.8 percent).
Table 2.34
Iron County Summary Commute Flows, 2000
In-Commuting to Iron County
Residence County
No. Share
Washington Co., UT
544 53.9%
Beaver Co., UT
104 10.3%
Sevier Co., UT
89
8.8%
Garfield Co., UT
45
4.5%
Salt Lake Co., UT
45
4.5%
Utah Co., UT
28
2.8%
Davis Co., UT
16
1.6%
Millard Co., UT
13
1.3%
Coconino Co., AZ
12
1.2%
Kane Co., UT
11
1.1%
Other
103 10.2%
Total In-Commuters
1,010 100%
Out-Commuting from Iron County
Workplace County
No. Share
Washington Co., UT
677 49.5%
Beaver Co., UT
187 13.7%
Clark Co., NV
109 8.0%
Kane Co., UT
37 2.7%
Millard Co., UT
35 2.6%
Utah Co., UT
32 2.3%
San Juan Co., NM
26 1.9%
Orange Co., CA
25 1.8%
Salt Lake Co., UT
19 1.4%
Garfield Co., UT
14 1.0%
Other
206 15.1%
Total Out-Commuters
1,367 100%
Net Out-Commuters
357
66
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Kane County
Employment
Employment in Kane County increased close to five-fold, 380.9 percent, from 1970 to 2006 for
an average annual rate of increase of 4.5 percent. This was second only to Washington County.
From 1970 to 2000, the county accounted for 4.8 percent of regional growth; however, from
2001 to 2006 Kane County contributed only 1.0 percent of regional growth. Over the entire
period county employment decreased from 6.7 percent of the region’s employment in 1970 to
4.1 percent in 2006 (Tables 2.35a and 2.35b). The fastest-growing industries over the 1970–2000
period were services (up 450.0 percent) and manufacturing (up 454.3 percent from 1980). Trade
and government also posted significant gains of 284.1 percent and 232.4 percent, respectively,
though they were less than total employment growth. Mining employment was low but steady
from at least 1980 through 1994, but plummeted in 1995 and went to zero in 1999. There was a
little activity in 2002 and 2003, but it was back to zero by 2004. From 2001 to 2006, total
employment grew 6.5 percent, from 2,902 to 3,092. The information sector was by far the fastest
growing, increasing employment 416.7 percent. However, its share of total employment in 2006,
with 31, was only 1.0 percent. Other sectors with significant growth include financial activity,
which doubled its employment; education and health services, up 80.4 percent; other services, up
two-thirds; and professional and business services, which increased nearly 60 percent. Three
sectors lost jobs from 2001 to 2006: manufacturing employment was cut in half, leisure and
hospitality services was down 4.2 percent, and government employment shrank 2.3 percent.
In 1970, government, trade, and services combined accounted for more than 80 percent of Kane
County employment. Figures for other industries were not reported to avoid disclosure of
individual firm data. By 2000, government, trade, and services were still dominant, together
providing more than three-quarters of nonagricultural jobs, but the manufacturing sector was
also a significant employer with 13.8 percent of jobs. In 2006, under the NAICS classification
system, government accounted for a little less than one-quarter of total employment (23.3
percent); leisure and hospitality services employed 27.9 percent and other services 13.2 percent;
trade, transportation, and utilities employed 14.5 percent; and manufacturing had declined to 6.0
percent, near its 1980 level.
To compare Kane County’s changing economic structure to that of the state, BEBR calculated
specialization in the county. In 1970, compared with the state as a whole, Kane County was
relatively specialized in all three sectors for which employment numbers were reported, i.e.,
trade, services, and government. By 2000, the county’s concentration in government had
increased somewhat and a modest specialization in manufacturing had developed. Employment
shares in trade and services were about equal to those statewide. In 2006, the county was
strongly specialized in leisure and hospitality services and in other services. Its government
concentration had declined slightly from 2000 and its manufacturing specialization disappeared
in 2002.
Wages
Total real wages (adjusted for inflation) in Kane County grew nearly five-fold from 1970 to
2006, from $14.7 million to $72.1 million (in constant 2006 dollars) (Table 2.37). The county’s
share of total wages in the region declined over the period, from 5.9 percent to 3.6 percent.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
67
Table 2.35a
Kane County Nonagricultural Employment by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
Mining
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Change
Share of
Growth
Construction
Manufacturing
(D)
17
10
12
12
16
14
1
3
1
1
0
0
–100.0%
Number
(D)
1.7%
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.9%
0.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
–0.9%
Share
(D)
51
20
31
35
49
75
107
101
113
102
115
135
164.7%
5.0%
1.3%
1.9%
2.0%
2.7%
3.7%
4.9%
4.4%
4.4%
3.8%
4.3%
4.8%
4.7%
70
62
62
44
33
42
42
44
279
367
406
388
454.3%
6.9%
3.9%
3.9%
2.6%
1.8%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
11.0%
13.6%
15.1%
13.8%
TCPU
Trade
Number Share Number
(D)
152 15.0%
53
3.4%
46
2.9%
35
2.0%
22
1.2%
35
1.7%
29
1.3%
24
1.1%
27
1.1%
28
1.0%
24
0.9%
68
2.4%
–55.3%
17.7%
–4.7%
176
264
495
475
491
530
590
697
737
657
689
675
676
284.1%
FIRE
Share
27.4%
26.0%
31.5%
29.5%
28.7%
28.9%
28.8%
31.8%
32.5%
25.8%
25.5%
25.0%
24.1%
Services
(D)
37
38
41
43
48
44
47
49
54
51
53
51
37.8%
23.1%
3.6%
2.4%
2.5%
2.5%
2.6%
2.1%
2.1%
2.2%
2.1%
1.9%
2.0%
1.8%
0.8%
144
197
418
453
548
614
713
728
759
818
836
769
792
450.0%
22.4%
19.4%
26.6%
28.2%
32.0%
33.5%
34.8%
33.2%
33.4%
32.1%
30.9%
28.5%
28.2%
29.9%
Government
Number Share
210
228
476
489
502
522
536
543
554
598
628
655
698
232.4%
32.7%
22.4%
30.3%
30.4%
29.4%
28.5%
26.2%
24.7%
24.4%
23.5%
23.2%
24.3%
24.9%
22.5%
Total
Share of
Region
643
1,016
1,572
1,609
1,710
1,834
2,049
2,194
2,271
2,547
2,702
2,697
2,808
336.7%
6.7%
6.3%
5.9%
5.6%
5.6%
5.4%
5.3%
5.1%
5.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.2%
5.2%
100%
4.8%
Table 2.35b
Kane County Nonagricultural Employment by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Mining
Year
No.
2001
0
2002
5
2003
2
2004
0
2005
0
2006
0
Change
Share of
0.0%
Growth
Share
0.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
No.
133
134
143
141
143
181
36.1%
25.3%
Share
4.6%
5.1%
5.2%
5.0%
5.0%
5.9%
No.
Share
TTU
No.
373 12.9%
368
128
4.9%
345
154
5.6%
363
164
5.8%
402
173
6.0%
421
187
6.0%
448
–49.9%
21.7%
–97.9%
42.1%
Information
Share
No.
12.7%
13.2%
13.2%
14.1%
14.6%
14.5%
6
6
11
19
31
31
416.7%
13.2%
Share
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.7%
1.1%
1.0%
Financial
Activity
Services
Services
No. Share No.
Share No. Share
61
64
75
96
110
120
96.7%
31.1%
2.1%
2.4%
2.7%
3.4%
3.8%
3.9%
32
30
32
32
35
51
59.4%
10.0%
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
1.1%
1.2%
1.6%
46
37
45
42
48
83
80.4%
1.6%
1.4%
1.6%
1.5%
1.7%
2.7%
19.5%
Leisure &
Hospitality
No.
Share
901
868
874
895
810
863
–4.2%
31.0%
33.2%
31.9%
31.5%
28.2%
27.9%
–20.0%
Other
Government
Services
No. Share No. Share Total
244
252
304
336
367
407
66.8%
85.8%
8.4%
9.6%
11.1%
11.8%
12.8%
13.2%
738
745
738
714
736
721
–2.3%
–8.9%
25.4%
28.5%
26.9%
25.1%
25.6%
23.3%
2,902
2,614
2,741
2,841
2,874
3,092
6.5%
5.1%
4.5%
4.6%
4.4%
4.1%
4.1%
100%
1.0%
68
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
Share
of
Region
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.36
Kane County Location Quotients by Major Industry, 1970–2006
SIC Industry
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
1970 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
–
0.50
0.54
0.65
0.64
0.85 0.71 0.05 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00
–
0.88
0.33
0.46
0.45
0.54 0.65 0.81 0.70 0.68 0.57 0.62 0.72
–
0.43
0.27
0.27
0.19
0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.82 1.04 1.19 1.14
–
2.42
0.58
0.50
0.36
0.21 0.30 0.23 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.43
1.23
1.11
1.32
1.23
1.20
1.22 1.21 1.31 1.35 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.03
–
0.78
0.51
0.53
0.52
0.51 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.35 0.36 0.34
1.38
1.06
1.06
1.11
1.25
1.28 1.33 1.26 1.25 1.18 1.13 1.02 0.98
1.17
0.99
1.46
1.47
1.44
1.45 1.39 1.37 1.40 1.36 1.36 1.43 1.45
NAICS Industry
Construction
Manufacturing
TTU
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
0.00
0.30
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.69
0.81
0.83
0.75
0.70
1.14
0.46
0.54
0.56
0.59
0.62
0.66
0.66
0.71
0.74
0.07
0.08
0.14
0.24
0.39
0.37
0.41
0.45
0.57
0.65
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.16
0.13
0.15
0.13
0.15
3.42
3.53
3.44
3.41
3.11
2.98
3.14
3.67
3.97
4.38
1.45
1.57
1.47
1.40
1.45
2006
0.00
0.74
0.59
0.74
0.37
0.65
0.13
0.24
3.10
4.57
1.37
Table 2.37
Real Wage Trends in Kane County, 1970–2006
1970
Share of Region
Share of State
vs. Region Average
vs. State Average
1980
1990
2000
2006
Change
$14.7 $21.9 $30.1 $61.2
$72.1 390.2%
5.9%
5.3%
4.8%
4.6%
3.6%
–2.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
$1,906 $1,793 $1,595 $1,817 $1,942
1.9%
88.7% 82.9% 82.6% 88.4% 87.2%
–1.6%
66.9% 65.3% 62.0% 64.3% 67.4%
0.4%
Inflation-adjusted average monthly wages grew just 1.9 percent, from $1,906 to $1,942. Monthly
wages in Kane County were consistently below the regional average.
sector, paying 47.0 percent of total wages. The trade sector paid 21.0 percent and services paid
14.2 percent; data for the other sectors were not reported in 1970 due to disclosure issues, but
combined they paid less than 18 percent of wages. In 2000, government’s share of wages was
down to 31.8 percent and trade’s share was 15.1 percent; services had grown to 24.7 percent and
manufacturing paid 18.6 percent of total wages. By 2006, (Table 2.38b), under the NAICS
industry classification system, government’s share of wages had declined further to 29.3 percent.
Leisure and hospitality services provided 18.1 percent and other services 16.2 percent; trade,
transportation, and utilities paid 13.1 percent; while manufacturing’s share had declined to 6.8
percent.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
69
Table 2.38a
Total Nonagricultural Wages in Kane County by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
Year
Mining
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
Total
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
(D)
$0.15
$0.18
$0.19
$0.36
$0.20
$0.19
$0.02
$0.04
$0.01
$0.01
$0.0
$0.0
1.7%
0.9%
1.0%
1.6%
0.8%
0.7%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
(D)
$0.9
$0.3
$0.5
$0.5
$0.7
$1.2
$1.8
$1.8
$2.0
$1.9
$2.1
$2.4
9.9%
1.6%
2.3%
2.2%
2.9%
4.4%
5.8%
5.0%
5.1%
4.4%
4.7%
4.7%
(D)
$0.5
$0.9
$1.1
$0.8
$0.7
$0.6
$0.8
$0.8
$4.9
$6.7
$8.2
$9.7
5.3%
4.6%
5.4%
3.4%
3.0%
2.3%
2.5%
2.3%
12.5%
15.4%
18.2%
18.6%
(D)
$1.6 17.8%
$1.1 5.7%
$1.0 4.7%
$0.9 4.2%
$0.7 2.9%
$0.9 3.2%
$0.8 2.5%
$0.7 2.1%
$0.7 1.9%
$0.7 1.7%
$0.7 1.5%
$1.7 3.2%
$0.6
$1.5
$3.9
$3.8
$4.6
$4.8
$6.0
$7.0
$9.2
$7.2
$8.1
$7.4
$7.9
21.0%
17.4%
20.1%
18.9%
20.2%
20.4%
21.8%
22.4%
26.5%
18.2%
18.4%
16.6%
15.1%
(D)
$0.3
$0.6
$0.6
$0.6
$0.7
$0.7
$0.8
$0.8
$0.9
$0.9
$0.9
$1.0
3.0%
3.1%
2.7%
2.8%
2.8%
2.5%
2.6%
2.4%
2.3%
2.0%
2.0%
1.9%
$0.4
$1.4
$4.8
$5.0
$6.2
$6.7
$8.1
$9.2
$10.1
$10.6
$11.6
$10.8
$12.9
14.2%
16.0%
24.8%
24.7%
27.1%
28.2%
29.3%
29.5%
29.1%
27.1%
26.4%
24.0%
24.7%
$1.3
$2.6
$7.6
$8.2
$8.8
$9.2
$9.9
$10.8
$11.3
$12.9
$13.9
$14.8
$16.6
47.0%
28.8%
39.3%
40.4%
38.5%
39.0%
35.8%
34.6%
32.5%
32.8%
31.6%
33.0%
31.8%
$2.7
$8.9
$19.2
$20.3
$22.7
$23.7
$27.8
$31.2
$34.8
$39.2
$43.9
$44.8
$52.0
$14.7
$21.9
$30.1
$30.4
$32.9
$33.3
$38.2
$41.8
$45.4
$50.0
$54.9
$54.6
$61.2
Table 2.38b
Total Nonagricultural Wages in Kane County by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Financial
Leisure &
Other
Government
Total
Activity
Services
Services
Hospitality
Services
Mining
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$0.0
$0.13
$0.04
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
$3.0
$2.7
$2.7
$2.9
$3.3
$4.6
5.2%
5.5%
5.0%
5.2%
5.2%
6.3%
$10.6 18.5%
$2.6
5.2%
$3.4
6.3%
$4.0
7.1%
$4.7
7.4%
$4.9
6.8%
TTU
$5.5
$5.5
$5.9
$6.9
$8.3
$9.4
9.5%
10.9%
10.9%
12.4%
13.2%
13.1%
Information
$0.1
$0.0
$0.1
$0.4
$0.6
$0.7
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.6%
1.0%
1.0%
$1.1
$1.3
$1.6
$2.4
$2.8
$3.3
1.9%
2.6%
3.0%
4.3%
4.5%
4.6%
$0.3
$0.3
$0.3
$0.4
$0.5
$1.1
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
0.8%
1.6%
$0.8
$0.6
$0.7
$0.8
$1.2
$2.1
1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
1.4%
1.9%
3.0%
$12.8
$12.6
$13.1
$11.6
$11.7
$13.0
22.4%
25.2%
24.4%
20.7%
18.6%
18.1%
$5.0
$5.8
$6.8
$7.9
$9.5
$11.7
8.6%
11.5%
12.6%
14.0%
15.2%
16.2%
$18.3
$18.6
$19.2
$18.9
$20.1
$21.1
31.9%
36.9%
35.6%
33.6%
32.1%
29.3%
$57.3
$50.2
$53.9
$56.2
$62.8
$72.1
70
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
$65.1
$55.9
$58.8
$59.9
$64.9
$72.1
Table 2.39a
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Kane County
Year
Mining
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
(D)
$753
$1,458
$1,340
$2,479
$1,047
$1,125
$1,333
$1,111
$1,083
$917
$0
$0
Const.
Mfg.
(D)
$1,446
$1,288
$1,261
$1,212
$1,170
$1,363
$1,407
$1,447
$1,487
$1,589
$1,513
$1,509
$276
$565
$1,187
$1,465
$1,458
$1,808
$1,250
$1,550
$1,525
$1,461
$1,532
$1,673
$2,082
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services Gov’t.
$682
$270
(D)
$860
$487
$595
$1,709
$650 $1,303
$1,723
$672 $1,124
$2,252
$782 $1,238
$2,625
$758 $1,132
$2,126
$854 $1,322
$2,227
$838 $1,436
$2,490 $1,043 $1,396
$2,272
$908 $1,421
$2,226
$976 $1,467
$2,313
$919 $1,443
$2,045
$969 $1,575
$225
$597
$949
$922
$936
$906
$949
$1,055
$1,112
$1,085
$1,155
$1,165
$1,353
Total Average
Current $
Constant $
$354
$726
$1,020
$1,052
$1,108
$1,075
$1,129
$1,186
$1,277
$1,284
$1,354
$1,385
$1,544
$1,906
$1,793
$1,595
$1,575
$1,606
$1,513
$1,552
$1,589
$1,666
$1,636
$1,694
$1,686
$1,817
$507
$934
$1,324
$1,398
$1,455
$1,471
$1,547
$1,657
$1,700
$1,791
$1,843
$1,883
$1,976
Table 2.39b
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Kane County by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Mining Const.
$0
$2,223
$1,636
$0
$0
$0
$1,851
$1,705
$1,561
$1,727
$1,899
$2,106
Bus. Health & Hosp.
Mfg.
TTU
Info.
Fin’l.
Act.
$2,373
$1,714
$1,842
$2,030
$2,250
$2,199
$1,238
$1,328
$1,351
$1,440
$1,643
$1,750
$1,071
$519
$902
$1,542
$1,652
$1,920
$1,486
$725 $1,409
$1,674
$816 $1,451
$1,799
$875 $1,306
$2,102 $1,071 $1,538
$2,154 $1,220 $2,079
$2,279 $1,872 $2,151
$1,188
$1,214
$1,252
$1,083
$1,202
$1,260
Other
Svcs.
Gov’t.
$1,692
$1,906
$1,864
$1,950
$2,167
$2,392
$2,062
$2,076
$2,167
$2,204
$2,280
$2,442
Total Average
$1,646
$1,601
$1,639
$1,648
$1,820
$1,942
From 1970 to 2000 (Table 2.39a), the transportation, communications, and public utilities sector
tended to pay the highest monthly wages, followed by government and manufacturing jobs. In
the 2001–06 period (Table 2.39b), government, manufacturing, and other services were the
highest-paying sectors. Financial activities, education and health services, and construction were
also among the best-paying sectors in 2006.
Occupations
The Census Bureau’s occupational distribution (Table 2.40) indicates what residents of Kane
County do (versus those who work in Kane County, which includes in-commuters from other
counties). In 2000, 29.2 percent of employed county residents were engaged in management,
professional, and related occupations, 24.4 percent were in sales and office occupations, 18.0
percent in service occupations, 15.3 percent in construction, extraction, and maintenance
occupations, and 11.8 percent in production, transportation, and material-moving occupations.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
71
$1,868
$1,783
$1,787
$1,757
$1,882
$1,942
Considering occupations by sex, more than 40 percent of Kane County women worked in sales
and office occupations, with 27 percent in office and administrative support positions and 14
percent in sales and related occupations. Management, professional, and related occupations
claimed 31.7 percent of the county’s female workforce, including 8.8 percent in management and
8.6 percent in education, training, and library occupations. Just over 21 percent of Kane County
women were engaged in service occupations, with 8.4 percent in food preparation and servingTable 2.40
Occupational Distribution by Sex for Employed Residents of Kane County, 2000
Occupation
Legal occupations
Service occupations
Extraction workers
Total
2,666
29.2%
16.1%
9.5%
3.0%
3.6%
0.6%
3.0%
13.1%
0.3%
0.5%
0.1%
0.3%
0.6%
1.0%
0.5%
5.2%
2.6%
2.5%
2.0%
0.5%
18.0%
2.3%
2.8%
2.2%
0.6%
6.1%
3.4%
3.5%
24.4%
10.4%
14.0%
1.2%
15.3%
9.0%
0.8%
7.8%
0.4%
6.3%
11.8%
5.1%
6.7%
0.2%
0.2%
3.2%
0.9%
2.3%
Male Female
1,475
1,191
27.3%
31.7%
17.5%
14.4%
10.0%
8.8%
4.9%
0.6%
2.5%
5.0%
0.2%
1.1%
2.3%
3.9%
9.8%
17.2%
0.5%
0.0%
0.7%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.5%
0.2%
1.1%
0.0%
0.7%
1.3%
0.3%
0.7%
2.4%
8.6%
2.3%
2.9%
1.8%
3.4%
1.8%
2.3%
0.0%
1.2%
15.3%
21.3%
1.0%
3.8%
4.0%
1.3%
3.3%
0.8%
0.7%
0.5%
4.2%
8.4%
3.9%
2.9%
2.2%
5.0%
11.1%
41.0%
7.5%
14.0%
3.5%
27.0%
1.3%
1.1%
26.8%
1.1%
15.8%
0.7%
1.5%
0.0%
13.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%
11.1%
0.4%
18.2%
3.9%
7.5%
2.3%
10.8%
1.6%
0.3%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
5.6%
0.3%
1.6%
0.0%
3.0%
1.3%
Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for the rest of the state (excluding Kane County).
72
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
related occupations and 5.0 percent in personal care and service occupations. More than onequarter of Kane County men worked in both management, professional, and related occupations
(27.3 percent) and construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations (26.8 percent). Within
these broad categories, 13.6 percent were construction trades workers, 11.1 percent were in
installation, maintenance, and repair occupations, and 10.0 percent were in management
(excluding farmers and farm managers). In addition, 10.8 percent of county men worked in
transportation and material-moving occupations and 7.5 percent in production occupations.
Major Employers
Major employers in Kane County include the Best Friends Animal Society, a 30,000-acre
sanctuary for abused and homeless animals north of Kanab; Stampin’ Up, a manufacturer of
rubber stamps; and Kane County Human Resources SSD, the county hospital (Table 2.41). The
county school district has been a significant employer since at least 1970, as has the Bullfrog
Marina on Lake Powell since at least 1980. The IGA Supercenter in Kanab has employed 50–99
people since at least 1990.
Table 2.41
Major Employers in Kane County, 1970–2006
Company
Industry
Employees
Barco of Utah
Kane County School District
Parry Lodge
1970
Manufacturing
Service Industries
Service Industries
50–99
61
37
20
Bullfrog Marina
Barco Manufacturing Co.
1980
Service Industries
Service Industries
Manufacturing
170
115
85
60
Bullfrog Resort & Marina
IGA Supercenter
Thunderbird Restaurant & Motel
1990
Service Industries
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
100–199
50–99
50–99
Best Friends Animal Society
Stampin’ Up
Glaziers Food Town
Honey IGA Supercenter
Houston’s Trails End Inc.
Kanab Elementary
Parry Lodge
2000
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
Manufacturing
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Service Industries
Service Industries
100–499
100–499
50–99
50–99
50–99
50–99
50–99
2006
Best Friends Animal Society
Other Services
Stampin’ Up
Manufacturing
Kane County Human Resource SSD Health Care and Social Assistance
Honey IGA Supercenter
Retail Trade
Bullfrog Resort & Marina
Fern Morrison GP
Department of the Interior
250–499
100–249
100–249
50–99
50–99
50–99
50–99
50–99
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
73
Commute Patterns
As noted above (Table 2.9), Kane County has the region’s largest share of its workforce working
out of state. In 2000, almost two-thirds of Kane’s out-commuters worked outside Utah (Table
2.42). Similarly, more than 70 percent of all in-commuters came from out of state. Coconino
County, Ariz., was the main source of in-commuters to Kane County, supplying 197 or 52.5
percent. Mohave County, Ariz., sent 47 or 12.5 percent, and Clark County, Nev., provided 19 or
5.1 percent. Coconino County was also the main destination of Kane County out-commuters,
attracting 385 or 51.1 percent. Mohave County drew 29 or 3.8 percent, and Clark County took
15 or 2.0 percent. Within the region, Washington County sent 41 workers, or 10.9 percent of incommuters; Iron County sent 37, or 9.9 percent; and Garfield County sent four, or 1.1 percent.
Washington also received 10.3 percent, 78, of Kane’s out-commuters; Garfield took 27, 3.6
percent; Iron took 11, 1.5 percent; and Beaver took 4, 0.5 percent. Kane sent twice as many
commuters out of the county, 754, as came in, 375.
Table 2.42
Kane County Summary Commute Flows, 2000
In-Commuting to Kane County
Residence County
No. Share
Coconino Co. AZ
197 52.5%
Mohave Co. AZ
47 12.5%
Washington Co. UT
41 10.9%
Iron Co. UT
37
9.9%
Clark Co. NV
19
5.1%
Cache Co. UT
10
2.7%
Salt Lake Co. UT
7
1.9%
Garfield Co. UT
4
1.1%
Other
13
3.5%
Total In-Commuters
375 100%
Net Out-Commuters
379
Out-Commuting from Kane County
Workplace County
No. Share
Coconino Co. AZ
385 51.1%
San Juan Co. UT
109 14.5%
Washington Co. UT
78 10.3%
Mohave Co. AZ
29
3.8%
Garfield Co. UT
27
3.6%
Clark Co. NV
15
2.0%
Maricopa Co. AZ
14
1.9%
Iron Co. UT
11
1.5%
Beaver Co. UT
4
0.5%
Other
82 10.9%
Total Out-Commuters
754
100%
74
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Washington County
Employment
Washington County is the economic engine of the southwest region. From 1970 to 2006 total
nonagricultural employment increased 1511.8 percent, for an 8.0 percent average annual rate of
increase. The county accounted for 5.7 percent of statewide employment growth over the period
and 73.1 percent of regional employment growth. Washington has been the only county in the
region to have net job growth in every sector from 1970 to 2000 and from 2001 to 2006.
The main drivers of this growth have been the trade and service sectors, with construction also
making a significant contribution. From 1970 to 2000 (Table 2.43a), trade accounted for 30.3
percent of county job growth, adding more than 9,000 jobs. However, the sector’s share of total
employment declined slightly from 33.8 percent to 30.7 percent. Over the same period services
contributed 27.7 percent of employment growth, adding more than 8,000 jobs and increasing its
share from 15.4 percent to 26.5 percent. Construction employment grew by 1184.9 percent,
accounting for 12.2 percent of county growth and increasing the sector’s share of employment
from 9.8 percent to 11.9 percent. Government job growth of almost 4,000 jobs contributed 13.1
percent of county growth, although the government’s share of total employment declined from
28.3 percent to 14.5 percent. Transportation, communications, and public utilities grew the
fastest over the period, increasing more than 20-fold but representing only 4.8 percent of total
employment by 2000.
From 2001 to 2006 (Table 2.43b), all services combined accounted for 38.9 percent of
employment growth, with education and health services alone contributing 16.8 percent. The
service sector represented 36.1 percent of total employment in 2006: education and health
services supplied 13.4 percent of jobs, leisure and hospitality services 12.7 percent, professional
and business services 7.3 percent, and other services 2.7 percent. Job growth in the construction
industry contributed 26.2 percent of county employment growth, and the sector represented
16.1 percent of total employment in 2006. Trade, transportation, and utilities accounted for 16.8
percent of employment growth over the period and provided 22.9 percent of jobs in 2006.
Government jobs accounted for 11.9 percent of all jobs in 2006, the lowest share of any of the
five counties.
To compare Washington County’s changing economic structure to that of the state, BEBR
calculated location quotients for 1970 through 2006 (Table 2.44). Values greater than 1.00
indicate relative specialization in the county. In 1970, Washington county was relatively
specialized in construction and trade, compared with the state as a whole. This was still the case
in 2000. In 2001, under the NAICS classification system, additional specializations appeared in
education and health services and in leisure and hospitality services. These too persisted so that
by 2006 the county had a strong specialization in construction (more than twice the statewide
employment share), and moderate specializations in leisure and hospitality services, education
and health services, and in trade, transportation, and utilities.
Wages
Reflecting the major employment gains over the period, total inflation-adjusted wages in
Washington County increased 1687.0 percent from 1970 to 2006, from $80.1 million to $1,431.6
million (Table 2.45). The county’s share of the region’s total wages grew from less than one-third
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
75
Table 2.43a
Washington County Nonagricultural Employment by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
Mining
Year
Construction
Number Share Number
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Change
Share of
Growth
(D)
70
106
166
141
176
213
159
141
152
163
171
188
168.6%
312
537
1,004
1,177
1,386
1,929
2,873
3,105
3,181
3,194
3,453
3,822
4,009
1184.9%
1.1%
0.7%
1.0%
0.8%
0.9%
0.9%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.4%
Manufacturing
Share
Number
9.8%
8.2%
6.8%
7.3%
8.0%
9.8%
12.3%
12.0%
11.4%
11.1%
11.3%
12.0%
11.9%
(D)
698
1,562
1,497
1,589
1,746
1,942
1,991
2,167
2,208
2,292
2,400
2,387
242.0%
12.2%
Share
10.7%
10.5%
9.3%
9.1%
8.9%
8.3%
7.7%
7.8%
7.7%
7.5%
7.5%
7.1%
TCPU
Trade
Number Share Number
81
231
869
881
860
965
1,133
1,284
1,439
1,475
1,610
1,630
1,627
1908.6%
6.2%
2.5%
3.5%
5.8%
5.5%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
5.0%
5.2%
5.1%
5.3%
5.1%
4.8%
5.1%
1,080
1,936
4,416
4,855
5,192
5,987
7,398
8,138
8,870
9,157
9,357
9,833
10,296
853.3%
FIRE
Share
33.8%
29.6%
29.7%
30.1%
29.8%
30.4%
31.7%
31.5%
31.8%
31.7%
30.8%
30.8%
30.7%
Services
82
408
518
656
723
818
984
1,039
1,151
1,060
1,198
1,244
1,300
1485.4%
30.3%
2.6%
6.2%
3.5%
4.1%
4.1%
4.1%
4.2%
4.0%
4.1%
3.7%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
492
967
3,715
4,068
4,525
4,916
5,389
6,426
6,984
7,350
7,846
8,120
8,896
1708.1%
4.0%
15.4%
14.8%
25.0%
25.2%
26.0%
24.9%
23.1%
24.9%
25.0%
25.5%
25.8%
25.4%
26.5%
27.7%
Government
Number Share
906
1,686
2,677
2,851
3,013
3,175
3,390
3,700
3,991
4,256
4,507
4,694
4,876
438.2%
28.3%
25.8%
18.0%
17.7%
17.3%
16.1%
14.5%
14.3%
14.3%
14.8%
14.8%
14.7%
14.5%
13.1%
Total
Share of
Region
3,197
6,533
14,867
16,151
17,429
19,712
23,322
25,842
27,924
28,852
30,426
31,914
33,579
950.3%
33.4%
40.7%
55.4%
56.4%
56.9%
58.1%
59.8%
60.3%
61.0%
60.0%
60.4%
61.1%
61.6%
100%
67.6%
Table 2.43b
Washington County Nonagricultural Employment by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Mining
Year
No.
2001
153
2002
154
2003
129
2004
149
2005
167
2006
246
Change 60.8%
Share of
0.6%
Growth
Share
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
No.
Share
4,160
4,323
4,747
5,686
7,176
8,289
99.3%
11.6%
11.6%
12.2%
13.3%
15.2%
16.1%
26.2%
No.
2,376
2,356
2,503
2,847
3,150
3,276
37.9%
Share
TTU
No.
Share
6.6% 9,128 25.5%
6.3% 9,520 25.5%
6.4% 9,605 24.6%
6.6% 10,072 23.5%
6.7% 10,953 23.2%
6.4% 11,785 22.9%
29.1%
5.7%
16.8%
Information
No.
672
706
856
818
883
869
29.3%
1.2%
Share
1.9%
1.9%
2.2%
1.9%
1.9%
1.7%
Financial
Activity
No. Share
1,489
1,560
1,700
1,833
1,976
2,248
51.0%
4.8%
4.2%
4.2%
4.4%
4.3%
4.2%
4.4%
Services
Services
No.
Share No. Share
Leisure &
Hospitality
No.
Share
2,419
2,669
2,684
3,164
3,467
3,786
56.5%
4,878
4,925
5,110
5,577
5,869
6,566
34.6%
8.7%
6.8%
7.1%
6.9%
7.4%
7.3%
7.3%
4,267
4,686
5,113
5,866
6,336
6,923
62.2%
11.9%
12.5%
13.1%
13.7%
13.4%
13.4%
16.8%
13.6%
13.2%
13.1%
13.0%
12.4%
12.7%
10.7%
Other
Government
Services
No.
Share
No.
Share
977
1,116
1,149
1,238
1,357
1,402
43.5%
2.7%
2.7%
3.0%
2.9%
2.9%
2.9%
2.7%
5,221
5,336
5,404
5,614
5,913
6,139
17.6%
5.8%
14.6%
14.3%
13.9%
13.1%
12.5%
11.9%
Total
35,740
37,351
39,000
42,864
47,247
51,529
44.2%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
63.2%
64.3%
65.2%
66.4%
67.4%
68.1%
100% 82.8%
76
Share
of
Region
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.44
Washington County Location Quotients by Major Industry, 1970–2006
SIC Industry
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
1970 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
–
0.32
0.60
0.89
0.73
0.87 0.94 0.69 0.61 0.63 0.68 0.72 0.75
2.40
1.44
1.75
1.72
1.75
2.00 2.20 1.99 1.80 1.71 1.70 1.74 1.80
–
0.67
0.71
0.65
0.66
0.65 0.61 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.58
0.39
0.57
1.00
0.96
0.86
0.84 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.86
1.52
1.27
1.25
1.25
1.24
1.28 1.33 1.30 1.32 1.32 1.29 1.30 1.31
0.61
1.34
0.74
0.84
0.85
0.81 0.79 0.77 0.78 0.69 0.73 0.72 0.73
0.95
0.81
1.00
1.00
1.01
0.95 0.88 0.95 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.92
1.02
1.14
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.82 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.85
NAICS Industry
Construction
Manufacturing
TTU
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
0.64
0.64
0.53
0.54
0.48
0.57
1.76
1.83
1.93
2.02
2.14
2.04
0.59
0.59
0.61
0.64
0.65
0.62
1.26
1.27
1.24
1.18
1.18
1.17
0.61
0.65
0.79
0.70
0.67
0.62
0.72
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.71
0.73
0.54
0.58
0.56
0.59
0.57
0.57
1.18
1.18
1.19
1.23
1.20
1.20
1.50
1.40
1.41
1.41
1.37
1.41
0.97
0.97
0.98
0.97
0.99
0.95
0.83
0.79
0.76
0.73
0.71
0.70
to more than two-thirds over the period, and its share of total state wages increased from 0.7
percent to 3.4 percent. The real average monthly wage in the county grew 10.8 percent from
1970 to 2006, from $2,089 to $2,315 (in constant 2006 dollars). The county’s monthly wage went
from being almost 3 percent below the regional average in 1970 to nearly 4 percent above it in
2006, and gained against the state average from 73.3 percent to 80.3 percent.
Table 2.45
Real Wage Trends in Washington County, 1970–2006
1970
Share of Region
Share of State
vs. Region Average
vs. State Average
1980
1990
2000
2006
Change
$80.1 $162.4 $344.3 $867.6 $1,431.6 1687.0%
32.4% 39.0% 55.3% 64.5%
70.8%
38.4%
0.7%
0.9%
1.5%
2.4%
3.4%
2.8%
$2,089 $2,077 $1,930 $2,153
$2,315
10.8%
97.2% 96.0% 99.9% 104.7% 103.9%
6.7%
73.3% 75.7% 75.1% 76.2%
80.3%
7.0%
Those sectors paying the largest shares of total wages in 1970 (Table 2.46a) were government
(30.0 percent), trade (28.0 percent), and construction (18.3 percent). Together they paid more
than three-quarters of all nonagricultural wages in the county. In addition, the service sector paid
almost 10 percent of wages. By 2000, government’s share had declined to 16.4 percent,
construction’s to 13.0 percent, and trade’s to 23.8 percent. In their place the service sector more
than doubled its share to 26.2 percent of total wages, with manufacturing and transportation,
communications, and public utilities adding 8.4 percent and 7.0 percent, respectively. As of 2006
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
77
Table 2.46a
Total Nonagricultural Wages in Washington County by SIC Sector, 1970–2000
Year
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Mining
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
Services
Government
Total
(D)
$1.0
$3.0
$4.8
$3.8
$4.9
$6.0
$4.6
$4.4
$4.3
$5.1
$5.4
$6.1
1.6%
1.4%
1.9%
1.4%
1.5%
1.5%
1.0%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
$2.7
$7.7
$18.6
$24.2
$24.6
$35.4
$53.5
$59.8
$61.3
$62.8
$71.9
$84.1
$95.6
18.3%
11.6%
8.5%
9.7%
8.9%
10.8%
13.2%
12.8%
11.7%
11.1%
11.4%
12.4%
13.0%
(D)
$8.6
$25.9
$26.4
$29.9
$33.1
$39.1
$44.6
$50.8
$54.0
$56.8
$60.4
$61.9
13.0%
11.7%
10.6%
10.7%
10.1%
9.6%
9.5%
9.7%
9.6%
9.0%
8.9%
8.4%
$0.6
$3.7
$19.3
$19.6
$19.0
$22.6
$27.6
$31.9
$36.7
$41.2
$46.1
$48.1
$51.5
4.1%
5.6%
8.8%
7.9%
6.8%
6.9%
6.8%
6.8%
7.0%
7.3%
7.3%
7.1%
7.0%
$4.2
$14.1
$49.1
$56.1
$62.7
$73.9
$96.5
$112.6
$127.9
$138.2
$144.6
$161.2
$175.6
28.0%
21.4%
22.3%
22.5%
22.5%
22.6%
23.8%
24.1%
24.4%
24.4%
22.9%
23.7%
23.8%
$0.4
$4.1
$8.8
$11.7
$14.4
$17.9
$21.5
$23.7
$25.5
$25.6
$30.5
$30.2
$32.5
2.6%
6.3%
4.0%
4.7%
5.2%
5.5%
5.3%
5.1%
4.9%
4.5%
4.8%
4.4%
4.4%
$1.4
$8.0
$48.2
$55.2
$67.5
$77.4
$91.8
$111.9
$128.1
$140.8
$158.2
$167.3
$192.9
9.7%
12.2%
21.9%
22.1%
24.3%
23.6%
22.6%
23.9%
24.5%
24.9%
25.1%
24.6%
26.2%
$4.5
$18.6
$47.2
$51.7
$56.2
$62.2
$70.0
$78.6
$88.7
$98.7
$117.3
$123.3
$121.3
30.0%
28.3%
21.4%
20.7%
20.2%
19.0%
17.2%
16.8%
17.0%
17.4%
18.6%
18.1%
16.4%
$14.9
$65.8
$220.1
$249.7
$278.1
$327.5
$406.0
$467.7
$523.5
$565.7
$630.5
$680.0
$737.3
$80.1
$162.4
$344.3
$374.1
$402.8
$460.8
$558.3
$626.7
$683.2
$721.0
$788.9
$828.2
$867.6
Table 2.46b
Total Nonagricultural Wages in Washington County by NAICS Sector, 2001–2006
Financial
Leisure &
Other
Total
Government
Activity
Services
Services
Hospitality
Services
Mining
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$5.2
$3.5
$2.2
$2.6
$3.3
$6.1
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
$98.6
$103.2
$112.6
$144.4
$197.3
$246.5
12.4%
12.1%
12.3%
13.9%
16.2%
17.2%
$62.5
$61.5
$66.1
$78.7
$89.2
$97.4
7.8%
7.2%
7.2%
7.6%
7.3%
6.8%
TTU
$207.3
$227.0
$237.7
$263.3
$302.4
$336.3
26.0%
26.6%
26.0%
25.3%
24.8%
23.5%
Information
$17.5
$19.1
$22.8
$23.8
$26.4
$25.7
2.2%
2.2%
2.5%
2.3%
2.2%
1.8%
$39.3
$43.2
$49.3
$54.8
$68.5
$79.3
4.9% $53.7
5.1% $58.7
5.4% $59.3
5.3% $71.8
5.6% $88.4
5.5% $106.6
6.7%
6.9%
6.5%
6.9%
7.2%
7.4%
$117.0
$127.1
$144.2
$159.9
$177.8
$229.4
14.7%
14.9%
15.7%
15.4%
14.6%
16.0%
$52.4
$56.6
$59.8
$66.7
$74.8
$92.6
6.6%
6.6%
6.5%
6.4%
6.1%
6.5%
$16.9
$19.6
$20.7
$22.8
$26.5
$29.4
2.1%
2.3%
2.3%
2.2%
2.2%
2.1%
$126.9
$133.5
$140.7
$152.7
$165.3
$182.4
15.9%
$797.3
$905.1
15.7%
$852.9
$949.9
15.4%
$915.5
$998.5
14.7% $1,041.5 $1,110.0
13.6% $1,219.7 $1,261.4
12.7% $1,431.6 $1,431.6
78
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.47a
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Washington County
Year
Mining
1970
1980
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
(D)
$1,224
$2,344
$2,429
$2,262
$2,322
$2,360
$2,393
$2,611
$2,360
$2,629
$2,613
$2,684
Const.
Mfg.
TCPU
Trade
FIRE
$726
$1,188
$1,548
$1,710
$1,480
$1,530
$1,552
$1,604
$1,606
$1,639
$1,736
$1,833
$1,987
$365
$1,024
$1,380
$1,468
$1,566
$1,578
$1,676
$1,868
$1,953
$2,040
$2,064
$2,098
$2,160
$621
$1,329
$1,850
$1,855
$1,841
$1,953
$2,029
$2,069
$2,123
$2,326
$2,386
$2,460
$2,638
$322
$606
$927
$963
$1,006
$1,029
$1,087
$1,153
$1,202
$1,258
$1,288
$1,366
$1,421
(D)
$844
$1,423
$1,493
$1,657
$1,828
$1,822
$1,903
$1,843
$2,013
$2,121
$2,026
$2,085
Services Gov’t.
$245
$695
$1,081
$1,131
$1,244
$1,312
$1,420
$1,451
$1,529
$1,596
$1,680
$1,717
$1,807
Total Average
Current $
Constant $
$388
$841
$1,234
$1,288
$1,330
$1,384
$1,451
$1,508
$1,562
$1,634
$1,727
$1,776
$1,830
$2,089
$2,077
$1,930
$1,930
$1,926
$1,948
$1,995
$2,021
$2,039
$2,082
$2,161
$2,163
$2,153
$411
$922
$1,468
$1,511
$1,555
$1,633
$1,721
$1,770
$1,853
$1,933
$2,169
$2,188
$2,073
Table 2.47b
Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Washington County by NAICS Sector,
2001–2006
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Mining Const.
$2,810
$1,905
$1,407
$1,429
$1,635
$2,053
$1,975
$1,990
$1,977
$2,117
$2,291
$2,478
Mfg.
TTU
Info.
Fin’l.
Act.
Bus. Health & Hosp.
Other
Svcs.
Gov’t.
$2,193
$2,175
$2,202
$2,303
$2,359
$2,477
$1,893
$1,987
$2,063
$2,179
$2,301
$2,378
$2,164
$2,252
$2,216
$2,423
$2,487
$2,461
$2,200
$2,306
$2,417
$2,493
$2,890
$2,939
$1,850
$1,831
$1,842
$1,892
$2,125
$2,346
$1,441
$1,467
$1,503
$1,531
$1,627
$1,748
$2,026
$2,085
$2,170
$2,267
$2,330
$2,477
$2,285
$2,260
$2,350
$2,272
$2,338
$2,761
$895
$957
$974
$996
$1,062
$1,175
Total Average
$1,859
$1,903
$1,956
$2,025
$2,151
$2,315
(Table 2.46b), trade, transportation, and utilities represented the largest source of nonagricultural
wages, paying 23.5 percent of the total. Construction’s share was up to 17.2 percent, and all
services combined paid just over 30 percent of wages, with half of that (16.0 percent) coming
from education and health services. The share of wages paid by the various levels of government
had further declined to 12.7 percent.
From 1970 through 2000 (Table 2.47a), mining jobs tended to pay the highest average monthly
wage (although a figure for the mining sector was not reported in 1970 due to disclosure issues).
The next highest paying sectors were TCPU (transportation, communications, and public
utilities), construction, government, and FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate). In the
2001–06 period (Table 2.47b), under the NAICS classification system, the highest-paying sectors
included financial activity, education and health services, information, manufacturing, and
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
79
$2,110
$2,119
$2,134
$2,158
$2,225
$2,315
government. Mining paid the highest monthly wage in 2001, but it had fallen by half by 2003
and was the third lowest sector in 2006.
Occupations
The Census Bureau’s occupational distribution (Table 2.48) indicates what Washington County
residents do (versus those who work in Washington County, which includes in-commuters from
Table 2.48
Occupational Distribution by Sex for Employed Residents
of Washington County, 2000
Occupation
Legal occupations
Service occupations
Extraction workers
Total
35,646
26.9%
12.1%
8.4%
0.4%
3.2%
1.1%
2.1%
14.8%
0.7%
1.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.2%
1.6%
0.6%
5.8%
1.8%
3.2%
2.3%
0.9%
18.3%
2.3%
1.6%
0.9%
0.7%
6.7%
4.3%
3.4%
27.5%
13.8%
13.7%
0.4%
13.8%
10.4%
1.3%
9.1%
0.1%
3.4%
13.2%
6.1%
7.1%
0.1%
0.1%
4.0%
0.3%
2.6%
Male Female
19,916
15,730
25.9%
28.0%
14.7%
8.8%
10.6%
5.6%
0.7%
0.1%
3.4%
3.0%
1.0%
1.4%
2.4%
1.7%
11.2%
19.3%
1.0%
0.2%
1.4%
0.3%
0.7%
0.2%
0.8%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
1.2%
2.0%
0.8%
0.2%
2.5%
10.0%
1.6%
2.0%
2.2%
4.3%
1.8%
2.8%
0.4%
1.5%
13.9%
23.8%
0.6%
4.4%
2.4%
0.6%
1.5%
0.1%
0.9%
0.5%
5.0%
8.9%
4.6%
4.0%
1.3%
5.9%
16.9%
40.9%
12.1%
16.0%
4.8%
24.9%
0.7%
0.1%
23.8%
1.1%
18.1%
0.7%
2.3%
0.0%
15.7%
0.7%
0.1%
0.0%
5.8%
0.3%
18.8%
6.0%
7.8%
3.8%
11.0%
2.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
6.3%
1.1%
0.4%
0.0%
3.8%
1.0%
Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for the rest of the state (excluding Washington County).
80
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
other counties and out of state). In 2000, 27.5 percent of employed county residents were
engaged in sales and office occupations, and 26.9 percent were in management, professional, and
related occupations. Another 18.3 percent worked in service occupations, 13.8 percent in
construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations, and 13.2 percent in production,
transportation, and material-moving occupations. Only 0.4 percent of county residents were
engaged in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations.
Examining occupations by sex, 40.9 percent of Washington County women were in sales and
office occupations, with nearly one-quarter in office and administrative support occupations.
Ten percent of women worked in education, training, and library occupations and 8.9 percent
worked in food preparation and serving related occupations. Among county men, 15.7 percent
were construction trades workers, 12.1 percent were in sales and related occupations, 10.6
percent worked in management occupations (excluding farmers and farm managers), 7.8 percent
were in production occupations, and 6.3 percent were motor vehicle operators.
Major Employers
As the economic engine of the southwest region, Washington County has some of the largest
employers in the region, including over 50 companies with 100 or more employees (Table 2.49).
The Intermountain Healthcare Dixie Regional Medical Center has two campuses in St. George,
employing more than 1,500 people. The Wal-Mart warehouse in Hurricane employs around
1,000 people. Wal-Mart also has two retail stores, in St. George and Washington City, that each
employ between 250 and 500 workers. Other major employers in the county include Skywest
Airlines, Dixie State College, and CabineTec, a manufacturer of kitchen and office cabinetry.
There are also several other manufacturing companies that each employ between 100 and 250
workers.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
81
Table 2.49
Major Employers in Washington County, 1970–2006
82
Company
Industry
Dixie College
Washington County School District
Kellwood Co.
Washington County
1970
Service Industries
Service Industries
Manufacturing
250–499
250–499
100–249
100–249
Washington School District
Dixie College
Dixie Medical Center
Moore Business Forms
Kellwood Co.
St. George Steel Fabrication, Inc.
1980
Service Industries
Service Industries
Service Industries
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
600
450
320
185
165
150
125
Dixie Medical Center
Moore Business Forms
Skywest Airlines
American Recreation Products
Artex Int’l.
Everex Systems Inc.
Rocky Mountain Co.
Albertsons
Harmon City
Kmart Stores
Smith’s Food King
Holiday Inn
St. George Care Center
TW Recreational Services
1990
Service Industries
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Service Industries
Service Industries
Service Industries
400–499
200–299
200–299
100–199
100–199
100–199
100–199
100–199
100–199
100–199
100–199
100–199
100–199
100–199
Interstate Rock Products Inc.
Pace American of Utah Inc.
2000
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
100–499
100–499
Wal-Mart
IHC Hospital
Skywest Airlines
Dixie State College
Dixie Regional Medical Center
CabineTec
Wal-Mart
Cross Creek Manor
Interstate Rock Products Inc.
Quality Excavation Inc.
Split Rock Inc.
Deseret Laboratories Inc.
Pace American of Utah Inc.
Ram Manufacturing Co.
St. George Truss Company
Wilson Electronics Inc.
Orgill Inc.
Wells Dairy Inc.
2006
Manufacturing
Retail Trade
Construction
Construction
Construction
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Wholesale Trade
BUREAU
Employees
OF
ECONOMIC
1000–1999
1000–1999
500–999
500–999
500–999
250–499
250–499
250–499
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 2.49, cont’d.
Major Employers in Washington County, 1970–2006
Company
Industry
Albertsons
Auto Select St. George Ford
Boulevard Furniture
Costco Wholesale
Harmon City
Home Depot USA Inc.
Hurst Stores Inc.
Lin’s Supermarket Inc.
Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse
Newby Buick Olds Pontiac GMC
Sears Roebuck
Smith’s Food and Drug Ctrs.
Stephen Wade Auto Center
Target Corporation
Andrus Transportation Services
Dats Trucking
Spectrum
Western Wats Interviewing Center
AllConnect
Express Services Inc.
Substitute Employees
Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Center
IHC Rehabilitation Services
RedCliff Ascent Inc.
Red Cliffs Regional Inc.
Red Rock Canyon School LLC
SG Nursing Home LLC
Department of the Interior
St. George City Recreation
Green Valley Resort
Red Mountain Spa Management
Xanterra Parks and Resorts Inc.
St. George City
St. George City Police
Washington County
Washington County Sheriff
2006
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Retail Trade
Information
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
Employees
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
100–249
Commute Patterns
Washington County (Table 2.50) sent 318 more commuters out of the county than came in, in
2000. The main source of in-commuters to Washington was Iron County, which sent 677, or
nearly one-third of all in-commuters. Other significant in-state sources included Salt Lake
County, which sent 194 or 9.5 percent; and Utah County, which sent 101 or 5.0 percent. Within
the region, Kane County sent 78 workers, 3.8 percent of in-commuters; Beaver County sent 19,
or 0.9 percent; and Garfield County sent 12, or 0.6 percent. More than one-third, 38.3 percent,
of in-commuters lived out of state. Mohave County, Ariz. was the largest out-of-state source,
sending 422 or one-fifth of all in-commuters. Clark County, Nev. sent 99 in-commuters, or 4.9
percent; Arizona’s Coconino and Maricopa counties sent 55 or 2.7 percent and 32 or 1.6
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
83
percent, respectively. Los Angeles County, Calif. sent 27 workers or 1.3 percent of all incommuters. The main destination of out-commuters was Clark County, Nev., which took 737
Washington residents, or 31.3 percent of all out-commuters. In fact, 58.2 percent of those
working outside the county commuted to another state. Mohave, Maricopa, and Coconino
counties took 182 (7.7 percent), 73 (3.1 percent), and 20 (0.8 percent), respectively. Orange and
Los Angeles counties in California took 30 (1.3 percent) and 20 (0.8 percent), respectively.
Within the region, 544 Washington residents (23.1 percent of out-commuters) worked in
neighboring Iron County, 41 (1.7 percent) in Kane County, and 4 (0.2 percent) in Beaver
County. More than 300 Washington workers commuted even farther north, with 207 going to
Salt Lake County, 38 to Utah County, 37 to Cache County, and 27 to Wasatch County.
Table 2.50
Washington County Summary Commute Flows, 2000
In-Commuting to Washington
County
Residence County
No. Share
Iron Co. UT
677 33.2%
Mohave Co. AZ
422 20.7%
Salt Lake Co. UT
194 9.5%
Utah Co. UT
101 5.0%
Clark Co. NV
99 4.9%
Kane Co. UT
78 3.8%
Coconino Co. AZ
55 2.7%
Davis Co. UT
44 2.2%
Maricopa Co. AZ
32 1.6%
Weber Co. UT
29 1.4%
Los Angeles Co. CA
27 1.3%
Beaver Co. UT
19 0.9%
Garfield Co. UT
12 0.6%
Other
249 12.2%
Total In-Commuters
2,038 100%
Out-Commuting from Washington
County
Workplace County
No. Share
Clark Co. NV
737 31.3%
Iron Co. UT
544 23.1%
Salt Lake Co. UT
207 8.8%
Mohave Co. AZ
182 7.7%
Maricopa Co. AZ
73 3.1%
Kane Co. UT
41 1.7%
Utah Co. UT
38 1.6%
Cache Co. UT
37 1.6%
Orange Co. CA
30 1.3%
Wasatch Co. UT
27 1.1%
Coconino Co. AZ
20 0.8%
Los Angeles Co. CA
20 0.8%
Beaver Co. UT
4 0.2%
Other
396 16.8%
Total Out-Commuters
2,356 100%
Net Out-Commuters
318
84
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
3Agriculture
Employment
The preceding discussion focused on nonagricultural employment, but agriculture is a significant
activity in southwestern Utah, particularly in Beaver and Garfield counties. The Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) publishes county-level employment data back to 1969, breaking down
total employment into farm employment and nonfarm employment. Table 3.1 presents the BEA
numbers for total employment and farm employment by county for 1970 to 2005. These figures
do not coincide with the DWS nonagricultural employment numbers because the BEA uses a
different accounting method. The BEA includes proprietors employment, that is, self-employed
farmers and other small-business owners, and private household workers, e.g. domestic servants;
whereas the DWS reports only wage and salary employment based on company payrolls.
Therefore, subtracting farm employment from total employment in the table below will not give
figures that match the total nonagricultural employment numbers in the tables above.
Table 3.1
Farm Employment by County, 1970–2005
1970
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Change
Beaver
Total employment
Farm employment
Share of Total
1,711
342
20.0%
1,875
340
18.1%
2,122
328
15.5%
3,123
566
18.1%
3,063
572
18.7%
3,029
517
17.1%
3,066
568
18.5%
3,110
544
17.5%
3,173
546
17.2%
85.4%
59.6%
–2.8%
Garfield
Total employment
Farm employment
Share of Total
1,532
277
18.1%
2,330
279
12.0%
2,229
314
14.1%
3,083
364
11.8%
3,050
364
11.9%
3,053
359
11.8%
3,055
357
11.7%
3,167
354
11.2%
3,303
355
10.7%
115.6%
28.2%
–7.4%
Iron
Total employment
Farm employment
Share of Total
5,202
676
13.0%
7,376
536
7.3%
10,263
570
5.6%
19,149
595
3.1%
19,386
598
3.1%
19,598
566
2.9%
19,815
589
3.0%
20,646
575
2.8%
21,955
578
2.6%
322.0%
–14.5%
–10.4%
Kane
Total employment
Farm employment
Share of Total
1,073
193
18.0%
1,555
161
10.4%
2,388
163
6.8%
3,744
175
4.7%
3,799
174
4.6%
3,708
172
4.6%
3,894
170
4.4%
4,033
168
4.2%
4,111
169
4.1%
283.1%
–12.4%
–13.9%
Washington
Total employment
Farm employment
Share of Total
4,819
384
8.0%
9,475
451
4.8%
21,432
462
2.2%
47,552
542
1.1%
49,445
541
1.1%
51,936
535
1.0%
54,320
530
1.0%
58,901
526
0.9%
64,095 1230.0%
528
37.5%
0.8%
–7.2%
Southwest
Total employment
Farm employment
Share of Total
14,337
1,872
13.1%
22,611
1,767
7.8%
38,434
1,837
4.8%
76,651
2,242
2.9%
78,743
2,249
2.9%
81,324
2,149
2.6%
84,150
2,214
2.6%
89,857
2,167
2.4%
96,637
2,176
2.3%
574.0%
16.2%
–10.8%
454,612 688,650 944,329 1,387,847 1,393,316 1,394,367 1,409,099 1,452,532 1,510,983
20,826
19,660
19,148
20,380
20,418
19,678
20,107
19,726
19,815
4.6%
2.9%
2.0%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.3%
232.4%
–4.9%
–3.3%
State of Utah
Total employment
Farm employment
Share of Total
Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
85
Although farm employment’s share of total employment declined in every county over the study
period, the number of farm jobs grew in three counties: Beaver, Garfield, and, somewhat
surprisingly, Washington. Beaver County has had the largest share of total jobs in farm
employment of the five-county region. In 1970, 20 percent of jobs in Beaver were farm jobs.
Due to nearly 60 percent growth in farm employment over the period, this share has remained
fairly stable, declining only to 17.2 percent in 2005, or 546 jobs. Garfield is the second most
agricultural county in the region, with 355 farm jobs representing 10.7 percent of total
employment in 2005. Despite job growth of 28.2 percent, farm employment’s share declined
from 18.1 percent in 1970. The number of farm jobs in Washington County increased 37.5
percent from 384 in 1970 to 528 in 2005, although their share of total employment fell by a
factor of 10 from 8.0 percent to 0.8 percent. Iron and Kane both had significant shares of
employment in farming in 1970, with 13.0 percent and 18.0 percent respectively, but by 2005
farm jobs had fallen to 2.6 percent and 4.1 percent of total employment. In the region as a
whole, farming’s share of employment fell from 13.1 percent in 1970 to 2.3 percent by 2005,
although the number of farm jobs grew 16.2 percent over the period to 2,176 in 2005. Utah has
seen a decline in both the number of farm jobs, from 20,826 in 1970 to 19,815 in 2005, and in
farming’s share of total employment, from 4.6 percent to 1.3 percent.
Production
The Census of Agriculture is conducted every five years and provides data on the number and
size of farms, their operations, and the goods produced. The total acreage in farms fell in every
county in the southwest from 1969 to 2002, although three counties saw increases in farm
acreage from 1997 to 2002 (Table 3.2). Beaver added over 8,000 acres, Washington added more
than 56,000, and Iron added nearly 78,000.
Table 3.2
Agriculture in the Southwest: Land in Farms and Value of
Production, 1969–2002
1969
1978
1987
1997
2002
Land in Farms (acres)
Beaver
179,402
187,311
187,041
131,045
139,158
Garfield
194,434
129,791
138,559
122,536
79,879
Iron
536,720
460,481
483,118
401,293
479,102
Kane
229,385
242,531
207,495
173,628
155,825
Washington
259,498
231,079
178,169
160,899
217,147
Southwest
1,399,439 1,251,193 1,194,382
989,401 1,071,111
share of state
12.4%
11.9%
12.0%
8.2%
9.1%
State
11,312,951 10,517,668 9,989,073 12,008,137 11,731,228
Change
–22.4%
–58.9%
–10.7%
–32.1%
–16.3%
–23.5%
3.7%
Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold (millions of constant 2002 dollars)
$32.8
$31.5
$67.3
$161.3 681.7%
Beaver
$20.6
Garfield
$8.8
$9.1
$9.6
$8.7
$6.0 –31.0%
Iron
$35.8
$43.6
$39.6
$48.7
$77.4 116.2%
Kane
$5.3
$4.8
D
$3.5
$3.4 –36.1%
Washington
$26.2
$20.9
$11.0
$11.4
$7.3 –72.3%
Southwest
$96.7
$111.2
>$91.7
$139.7
$255.4 164.2%
share of state
8.9%
8.4%
>9.2%
13.7%
22.9%
State
$1,083.7
$1,330.4
$998.4
$1,016.9
$1,115.9
3.0%
Note: Market value data for Kane County were not disclosed in 1987, therefore the actual total for the
southwest and its share of the state were larger than indicated.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture: Utah.
86
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Despite the loss of farmland in the southwest, the market value of agricultural products sold
increased 164.2 percent for the region, adjusting for inflation, versus only 3.0 percent statewide.
In 1969, farms in the region sold $96.7 million of agricultural products (in constant 2002
dollars), which represented 8.9 percent of the value of statewide production. By 2002, the
region’s share of state production had increased to 22.9 percent with $255.4 million in sales. This
growth was driven by Beaver and Iron counties. Beaver’s sales of agricultural products increased
681.7 percent from $20.6 million in 1969 to $161.3 million in 2002 (in constant 2002 dollars); in
fact, in 2002 one-seventh of the value of agricultural products sold in Utah was produced in
Beaver County. Iron County agricultural sales grew 116.2 percent over the period, from $35.8
million to $77.4 million. The value of agricultural sales in the remaining three counties fell, from
31.0 percent in Garfield to 72.3 percent in Washington.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
87
4
Real Estate and Construction
Land Ownership
The federal government owns more than half the land in the West. In Utah, 57.5 percent of the
land is under federal ownership14 and more than three-quarters of the land in the five-county
region is federally owned, with an additional 5.9 percent under state ownership and 0.3 percent
in tribal ownership (Exhibit 4.1). Only about 15 percent of the land in southwest Utah is
privately owned. Among the federal landholders, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns
52.1 percent of the land in the region, the U.S. Forest Service owns 17.2 percent, and the
National Park Service owns 8.7 percent. The state-owned land is divided among the School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), which owns 5.5 percent of the land in the
region, and state wildlife reserves and state parks, each of which holds 0.2 percent. In addition,
the Utah Department of Transportation owns 2.5 acres in Washington County.
While the large share of federal ownership may eventually limit development in the region, many
of the federal lands draw recreational users and tourists, who drive a good portion of the area’s
service-based economy. (Leisure and hospitality services accounted for 12.3 percent of total
nonagricultural employment in the region in 2006.) Several studies have shown that the natural
amenities embodied in public lands contribute to economic development in rural areas.15 For
example, Deller et al. (2001), in examining the role of natural amenities and quality of life
attributes in rural economic growth, concluded that “rural areas which can be characterized as
endowed with high levels of key natural resource amenity endowments and overall quality of life
experience higher overall levels of growth. Of the five amenity attributes included in our models,
all are positively related to at least one measure of growth; none were negatively related to any of
the measures of growth” (363). In any case, in the face of rapid population growth and limited
private land availability, some SITLA lands may be sold for development, which would ease
some of the constraints.
Exhibits 4.2–4.6 detail land ownership in each county. Garfield County (Exhibit 4.2) has the
largest share of government-owned land, with only 5.1 percent privately held. Nearly 90 percent
is federally owned, with the BLM owning 44. percent, the Forest Service 31.5 percent, and the
Park Service 13.4 percent. These include parts of Dixie National Forest, Bryce Canyon National
Park, parts of Capitol Reef and Canyonlands National Parks, Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area, and Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument. The state owns nearly 5 percent,
most of which is SITLA lands, with a couple of small state parks and wildlife reserves.
14 The West comprises Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado,
Wyoming, and Montana. Federal and state statistics are from the 2004 Federal Real Property Profile, Office of
Governmentwide Policy, U.S. General Services Administration; available at
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/programView.do?pageTypeId=8203&ooid=14535&programPage=
%2Fep%2Fprogram%2FgsaDocument.jsp&programId=8994&channelId=-15021, accessed 13 December 2007.
Note that more recent editions of the profile are not required to report details on land ownership.
15
See, for example: McGranahan, David. “Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change.” Agricultural
Economic Report No. AER781, October 1999, USDA Economic Research Service; Deller, Steven C., Tsung-Hsiu
(Sue) Tsai, David W. Marcouiller, and Donald B.K. English. “The Role of Amenities and Quality of Life in Rural
Economic Growth.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 83, No. 2, May 2001: 352–65; Rasker, Ray, Ben
Alexander, Jeff van den Noort, and Rebecca Carter. “Prosperity in the 21st Century West: The Role of Protected
Public Lands.” July 2004, Sonoran Institute; and Reeder, Richard J., and Dennis M. Brown. “Recreation, Tourism,
and Rural Well-Being.” Economic Research Report No. ERR7, August 2005, USDA Economic Research Service.
88
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Exhibit 4.1
Land Ownership in the Southwest by Entity
,
Federal
State
Tribal
Private
Water
Owner
Acres
Federal Government
8,815,722
5,857,647
BLM Wilderness Area
24,948
US Forest Service
1,863,979
82,573
986,575
State Government
665,150
State Trust Land
624,324
22,886
17,937
UDOT
3
Tribal
30,686
Private
1,676,725
Water
93,953
Total
11,282,236
Share
78.1%
51.9%
0.2%
16.5%
0.7%
8.7%
5.9%
5.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.3%
14.9%
0.8%
100%
Source: Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, Last Update March 3, 2007, Downloaded September 19, 2007; Bureau of
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
89
Exhibit 4.2
Land Ownership in Garfield County by Entity
,
US Forest Service
State Trust Land
Private
Water
Owner
Federal Government
US Forest Service
State Government
State Trust Land
Private
Water
Total
Acres
Share
2,983,884 89.6%
1,490,832 44.8%
1,021,389 30.7%
25,268
0.8%
446,395 13.4%
159,942
4.8%
157,002
4.7%
1,595 0.05%
1,345 0.04%
169,873
5.1%
17,380
1.1%
3,331,079 100%
Source: Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, last update March 3, 2007, downloaded September 19, 2007; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah.
90
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
At the other end of the public-private ownership spectrum is Iron County (Exhibit 4.3), more
than one-third (35.7 percent) of which is privately owned. The federal government holds more
than half (57.5 percent) of the land in the county. Most of this is BLM land, but there’s also
Cedar Breaks National Monument, the northern tip of Zion National Park, and about 240,000
acres of Dixie National Forest. State lands make up 6.7 percent of the county, the majority of
which are trust lands. However, Iron also has the second largest amount, about 8,300 acres, of
state wildlife reserve in the region. Iron is also one of two counties with Paiute tribal lands,
though at 2,500 acres they account for only 0.1 percent of the county’s land.
More than three-quarters (77.2 percent) of the land in Beaver County (Exhibit 4.4) is owned by
the federal government; more than two-thirds (68.8 percent) is BLM land and less than onetenth (8.4 percent) is Fishlake National Forest. State-owned lands account for one-tenth of the
county, with most of those state trust lands. However, Beaver has the largest amount of state
wildlife reserves, 11,925 acres, in the region. One-eighth (12.6 percent) of the county is privately
owned. Beaver and Iron counties have the least amount of recreational lands (e.g., national
forests, national parks, national monuments) of the Southwestern counties.
Kane County (Exhibit 4.5) is second only to Garfield County in the scarcity of privately owned
land (10.1 percent) and the abundance of federal lands (82.9 percent). More than 60 percent of
the county is BLM land, and most of that is the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument.
The National Park Service owns almost 400,000 acres in Kane (15.2 percent of the county), with
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, the southern end of Bryce Canyon, and the
southeastern corner of Zion National Park. The state owns 4.0 percent of the county, most of
which is SITLA land, including a 52,621-acre block mostly west and south of Big Water. There
are also almost 6,000 acres of state park lands in the county split between Kodachrome Basin
and Coral Pink Sand Dunes.
Washington (Exhibit 4.6), the fastest-growing county in the region, is 17.6 percent privately
owned (the second-highest rate) and 74.7 percent federally owned. Again, most of the federal
land is owned by the BLM (40.8 percent of the total), but there are also about 400,000 acres of
national forest that make up one-quarter of the county. The 135,000-acre Zion National Park,
2,860 acres of which are in Iron County, makes up 8.5 percent of the county. State-owned lands
account for 5.8 percent of the county, with most of that under SITLA ownership plus about
10,000 acres of state parks, 850 acres of wildlife reserve, and a 2.5-acre UDOT parcel along I-15
at the northeast corner of Washington City. The Paiute tribe has a 28,000-acre reservation
northwest of St. George and centered on Shivwits that makes up less than 2 percent of the
county.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
91
Exhibit 4.3
Land Ownership in Iron County by Entity
,
US Forest Service
State Trust Land
Paiute Tribal Lands
Private
Water
Owner
Federal Government
US Forest Service
State Government
State Trust Land
Paiute Tribal Lands
Private
Water
Total
Acres
Share
1,215,177 57.5%
963,347 45.6%
235,911 11.2%
7,068
0.3%
8,851
0.4%
141,184
6.7%
132,690
6.3%
8,255
0.4%
240 0.01%
2,503
0.1%
754,031 35.7%
440 0.03%
2,113,335 100%
Source: Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, last update March 3, 2007, downloaded September 19, 2007; Bureau of
92
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Exhibit 4.4
Land Ownership in Beaver County by Entity
,
US Forest Service
State Trust Land
Private
Water
Owner
Federal Government
US Forest Service
State Government
State Trust Land
Private
Water
Total
Acres
1,277,518
1,138,483
139,035
167,288
155,152
11,925
212
208,885
752
1,654,444
Share
77.2%
68.8%
8.4%
10.1%
9.4%
0.7%
0.01%
12.6%
0.05%
100%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
93
Exhibit 4.5
Land Ownership in Kane County by Entity
,
BLM Wilderness Area
US Forest Service
State Trust Land
Private
Water
Owner
Federal Government
BLM Wilderness Area
US Forest Service
State Government
State Trust Land
Private
Water
Total
Acres
Share
2,177,294 82.9%
1,633,467 62.2%
21,292
0.8%
123,176
4.7%
399,359 15.2%
106,046
4.0%
99,819
3.8%
5,964
0.2%
264 0.01%
270,235 10.3%
73,803
4.7%
2,627,378 100%
94
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Exhibit 4.6
Land Ownership in Washington County by Entity
,
BLM Wilderness Area
US Forest Service
State Trust Land
UDOT
Paiute Tribal Lands
Private
Water
Owner
Federal Government
BLM Wilderness Area
US Forest Service
State Government
State Trust Land
UDOT
Paiute Tribal Lands
Private
Water
Total
Acres
Share
1,161,850 74.7%
631,519 40.6%
3,656
0.2%
344,468 22.1%
50,237
3.2%
131,971
8.5%
90,689
5.8%
79,662
5.1%
10,177
0.7%
848
0.1%
3 0.00%
28,183
1.8%
273,700 17.6%
1,577
0.1%
1,556,000
100%
Source: Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, last update March 3, 2007, downloaded September 19, 2007; Bureau of
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
95
Southwest Region
Residential Construction
In 2007 the housing inventory for the five-county region totaled 85,807 dwelling units (Table
4.1). Washington County, with 56,316 units, accounts for two-thirds of the residential units in
the region. Led by Washington County, the region has experienced a tremendous increase in its
inventory since 2000. Thirty-one percent, or 26,488, of the region’s dwelling units have been
built since 2000 and 19,823 of these new units were located in Washington County. In
Washington County one out of every three dwelling units has been built since 2000.
The rental market is a relatively small segment of the
regional housing market. Only 19 percent of the
residential units in the five-county region are rental units.
Statewide, rental units represent 27 percent of the
housing inventory. Unique to the region is the large
presence of recreation or occasional-use units. In
Washington County these units are primarily time-share
or second homes, while in the other counties they are
recreation homes or cabins. About 14 percent of the
housing inventory in the region is devoted to recreational
and occasional-use structures. The region has a total of
12,223 recreational and occasional-use units of which
6,852 are in Washington County.
Table 4.1
Housing Profile for the FiveCounty Region, 2007
Total Housing Units
Vacant Year Round
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
85,807
73,584
2,783
70,803
57,212
80.8%
13,591
19.2%
12,223
14.2%
31.0%
The value of new residential construction in the region is
impressive. The permit value of new residential construction since 1975 for the five counties is
$9.0 billion (in 2007 dollars) (Table 4.2). Washington County accounted for 76.7 percent, or $6.9
billion, of residential construction value, while Beaver County had the smallest share at 1.8
percent and a total of $162.5 million in residential construction valuation.
The high level of residential construction in the region has been a major contributing factor to
economic growth, particularly over the past six years. Since 2001 construction employment has
accounted for over one-quarter of the job growth in both the region and Washington County,
while in Iron County it accounts for 34.1 percent of job growth over the period. Historically,
construction employment played much less of a role in job creation prior to 2000. Between 1970
and 2000 job increases in construction accounted for only 10.3 percent of job growth in the fivecounty region and 12.2 percent of job growth in Washington County.
Residential construction in the five-county region is cyclical, although the housing cycle has been
much less volatile than in the 1980s.16 Since 1990 there have been two periods of rapid
expansion and contraction in residential construction in the region, 1993 through 1996 and 2003
through 2006. Peak residential years were 1994, with 3,533 units, and 2005, with 5,198 units
(Figure 4.1 and Table 4.3).
16 Note that 1985 was an aberration created by a proposed significant increase in the cost of building permits in
1986, which induced builders to apply for an unusually high number of permits in 1985, primarily for apartment
units. Consequently, the number of building permits issued in 1985 is artificially high and does not represent actual
demand for new residential units.
96
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 4.2
Value of Residential Construction by County, 1975–2007
Beaver
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
Garfield
Iron
Kane
Washington
Total
$5,844.7
$1,052.3
$13,902.8
$2,182.5
$14,173.1
$37,155.5
$5,466.1
$3,023.2
$29,015.6
$5,749.5
$62,386.2
$105,640.6
$5,931.4
$5,011.1
$30,974.3
$5,372.2
$85,797.5
$133,086.4
$6,869.5
$3,998.5
$34,743.8
$9,939.7
$107,015.0
$162,566.4
$4,370.7
$3,991.9
$27,142.2
$9,073.6
$98,278.9
$142,857.2
$4,748.8
$2,736.5
$12,640.8
$7,637.6
$60,496.9
$88,260.5
$12,034.7
$2,479.9
$19,548.3
$6,670.8
$56,356.2
$97,089.8
$2,763.0
$3,121.4
$5,184.9
$7,363.7
$42,442.0
$60,875.1
$3,099.5
$2,217.8
$13,274.1
$9,734.1
$62,903.6
$91,229.1
$1,069.8
$3,626.3
$16,848.2
$2,184.3
$99,172.2
$122,900.9
$1,868.8
$2,682.3
$9,595.8
$4,405.5
$268,329.8
$286,882.3
$960.6
$3,123.1
$10,139.1
$5,713.5
$99,298.6
$119,234.9
$47.6
$1,975.6
$3,874.7
$4,903.4
$69,055.2
$79,856.5
$906.0
$2,047.6
$5,599.9
$5,028.5
$65,422.5
$79,004.5
$979.4
$1,619.4
$12,704.2
$4,342.4
$63,520.2
$83,165.7
$1,971.1
$2,193.4
$11,170.4
$6,130.9
$101,941.9
$123,407.7
$1,227.2
$1,754.5
$18,100.3
$6,213.9
$144,259.4
$171,555.3
$1,367.2
$2,078.5
$37,634.7
$5,866.1
$180,176.3
$227,122.9
$2,714.5
$2,867.1
$53,566.5
$7,569.4
$288,695.2
$355,412.6
$5,187.8
$3,507.7
$69,349.6 $14,015.5
$352,923.1
$444,983.8
$6,239.7
$5,415.3
$60,767.4 $12,507.0
$267,966.7
$352,896.2
$8,537.4
$7,013.0
$82,486.7 $14,539.7
$255,870.0
$368,446.8
$8,185.9
$8,909.5
$48,224.1 $15,674.5
$219,821.0
$300,815.0
$7,884.0
$6,247.3
$39,100.2 $14,217.3
$242,283.3
$309,732.2
$7,588.4
$9,774.7
$35,591.1 $14,249.5
$244,399.0
$311,602.7
$5,858.4
$8,437.5
$46,895.5 $13,606.5
$254,443.9
$329,241.9
$3,476.2
$7,371.8
$36,004.4 $14,136.3
$260,530.0
$321,518.7
$5,620.4
$8,796.3
$53,008.2 $12,379.6
$322,117.5
$401,922.2
$6,372.7
$9,447.8
$56,386.3 $15,018.2
$431,520.9
$518,745.9
$3,552.7
$9,109.5
$103,664.3
$7,435.6
$592,553.7
$716,315.8
$7,085.6
$10,595.4
$157,307.4 $42,001.3
$713,616.2
$930,605.9
$13,325.7
$16,744.6
$128,734.6 $53,299.7
$439,850.1
$651,954.7
$9,379.0
$16,765.0
$85,454.6 $30,126.5
$351,159.7
$492,884.8
$162,534.7 $179,735.9 $1,368,635.0 $389,288.9 $6,918,775.9 $9,018,970.3
The most recent cycle demonstrates a high degree of volatility with a steep descent from its peak
in 2005. The number of building permits has fallen from 5,198 to 2,954 in two years; a 42
percent decline. In the mid-1990s cycle, from peak to trough took five years and the decline was
only 30 percent. However, the mid-1990s cycle had a much steeper ascent than the recent cycle.
Over five years, building permit activity increased by nearly 500 percent, rising from the trough
of 611 units in 1989 to the peak of 3,533 units in 1994. In the most recent expansion, trough to
peak was six years and the increase was 147 percent.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
97
Figure 4.1
Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units in the Five-County Region
6,000
Dwelling Units
5,000
Total
Washington
Iron
Other
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
07
20
05
20
03
20
20
01
99
97
19
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
19
75
0
Demand for residential units is driven by demographic and economic conditions: household
growth, age structure of the population, net in-migration, employment growth, income,
mortgage rates, and real estate prices. These conditions were particularly favorable in 2003 in
Washington and Iron counties. Washington County had two other factors contributing to the
demand for new housing units between 2003 and 2006: demand for second/retirement homes
and demand created by housing market speculation. Housing speculation is discussed in the
county’s housing analysis.
The second home/retirement component of the market is driven primarily by the demographics
of the Baby Boomers. The retirement of this generation, which is just beginning, creates a very
positive long-term condition for the five-county region and will benefit particularly Washington
County, but the other four counties will also participate in increased demand for
second/retirement homes. Between 2007 and 2020 the number of people over 60 will grow
more than twice as fast as the number of those under 60 years. Nationally, between 2007 and
2020, the over-60 age group will increase at an annual growth rate of 2.9 percent compared with
only .35 percent for the under-60 group. In Utah the over-60 age group will increase at an
annual rate of 4.0 percent versus 1.9 percent for the under-60 group. Although Utah households
will be the source of a significant share of the Baby Boom demand, California, Nevada, and
Arizona are also very important in this market.
A not uncommon occurrence is for an out-of-state buyer from a high-value market to use some
of the equity in their current home to finance a second home in the region, particularly
98
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Housing Prices
The National Association of Realtors and
Economy.com provide estimates on the
median sales price of single-family homes
for each of the five counties (Table 4.4).
The data show that rapid price appreciation
in the region is closely associated with the
building booms of 1993–95 and 2005–06.
In each period the median sales price
accelerated at double-digit rates for most of
the five counties. Washington County had
the highest recent rates of appreciation with
a 28.1 percent increase in 2005 and a 16.6
percent increase in 2006.
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
Washington
Kane
Iron
Garfield
Table 4.3
Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units in the
Five-County Region, 1975–2007
Beaver
Washington County. The intention is to use
the Washington County home as a vacation
home until retirement, at which time it
becomes the primary residence. Unlike the
speculator, such buyers will remain an
important part of the housing demand in
the region’s future.
Total
52
12
126
23
125
338
49
31
271
89
446
886
65
44
310
46
562
1,027
53
40
295
81
841
1,310
40
30
219
98
714
1,101
41
20
131
96
459
747
144
33
201
93
517
988
27
24
49
99
431
630
28
30
151
97
648
954
11
39
185
21
905
1,161
15
27
104
57
3,128
3,331
14
35
82
60
896
1,087
1
23
25
59
533
641
9
19
34
57
493
612
12
6
97
14
482
611
11
8
73
30
805
927
8
19
168
76
1,048
1,319
11
26
468
70
1,266
1,841
22
37
605
72
2,114
2,850
38
33
644
121
2,697
3,533
65
53
557
131
2,017
2,823
74
69
864
125
1,929
3,061
67
76
474
135
1,514
2,266
59
50
276
128
1,687
2,200
58
89
309
132
1,519
2,107
41
68
417
135
1,562
2,223
25
55
307
127
1,740
2,254
32
58
432
104
1,995
2,621
40
55
315
122
2,678
3,210
22
54
591
56
3,794
4,517
36
61
941
300
3,860
5,198
68
86
773
332
2,256
3,515
54
139
656
151
1,954
2,954
1,256 1,449 11,150 3,337 47,615 64,807
Another source of housing price data is the
Washington County Board of Realtors,
which provides average sales price data,
rather than median price data, for singlefamily homes. During the 1990–95
Washington County housing expansion, the
average price of a home sold increased at
8.6 percent annually (Table 4.5). This rate of
increase was exceeded in the recent housing
boom when the average annual growth rate
for the five-year period of 2000 to 2005
reached 12.5 percent annually. Price
appreciation continued into 2006 with a
21.3 percent increase but had run its course
Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of
by 2007, when the average price of a home
Utah.
sold dropped by 5.4 percent. The average
annual growth rate in housing prices in Washington County since 1980 has been 5.7 percent,
slightly higher than the near 5 percent annual rate statewide.
A consequence of rapid price appreciation is declining affordability, which has led to concerns
among civic and business leaders regarding the availability of workforce housing. Workforce
housing is a relatively new term defined as affordable homeownership opportunities for critical
workforce participants, including police officers, teachers, nurses, medical technicians, and office
workers. In Washington County the high price of housing is often pricing young, working
families out of the market. A local taskforce has been organized to address the problem.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
99
Ultimately, improving affordability will require coordination between housing advocates,
business leaders, and city officials. Zoning ordinances are key to mitigating the consequences of
market forces, but rising housing prices are inevitable in a rapidly growing, desirable region and
the issue of workforce housing will be a long-term challenge.
Table 4.4
Median Sales Price of Existing Single-Family Homes, 1979–2006
(current dollars, seasonally adjusted)
Beaver
Price
Change
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$42,400
$45,010
$47,950
$48,620
$48,850
$48,890
$48,900
$48,980
$48,980
$50,220
$49,690
$48,100
$49,360
$51,080
$55,950
$65,250
$69,730
$72,760
$77,690
$81,720
$84,560
$85,540
$89,460
$93,360
$93,660
$98,000
$111,200
$127,470
Garfield
Price
Change
6.2%
6.5%
1.4%
0.5%
0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
2.5%
–1.1%
–3.2%
2.6%
3.5%
9.5%
16.6%
6.9%
4.3%
6.8%
5.2%
3.5%
1.2%
4.6%
4.4%
0.3%
4.6%
13.5%
14.6%
$36,150
$43,240
$47,350
$47,720
$46,370
$45,240
$45,070
$46,650
$48,540
$49,670
$49,080
$48,310
$49,580
$51,190
$56,130
$66,910
$75,110
$80,720
$86,400
$90,850
$92,900
$91,940
$91,610
$92,690
$94,750
$100,110
$112,260
$127,360
19.6%
9.5%
0.8%
–2.8%
–2.4%
–0.4%
3.5%
4.1%
2.3%
–1.2%
–1.6%
2.6%
3.2%
9.7%
19.2%
12.3%
7.5%
7.0%
5.2%
2.3%
–1.0%
–0.4%
1.2%
2.2%
5.7%
12.1%
13.5%
Iron
Price
Change
$51,630
$55,810
$58,410
$58,230
$57,900
$57,970
$57,220
$56,750
$57,490
$58,610
$57,640
$57,030
$59,950
$63,080
$69,250
$82,080
$92,280
$98,600
$104,680
$110,110
$111,800
$108,320
$107,810
$111,420
$115,610
$120,800
$133,110
$150,750
8.1%
4.7%
–0.3%
–0.6%
0.1%
–1.3%
–0.8%
1.3%
1.9%
–1.7%
–1.1%
5.1%
5.2%
9.8%
18.5%
12.4%
6.8%
6.2%
5.2%
1.5%
–3.1%
–0.5%
3.3%
3.8%
4.5%
10.2%
13.3%
Kane
Price
Change
$43,120
$51,470
$55,800
$56,710
$56,230
$56,110
$56,800
$58,250
$60,140
$61,760
$60,270
$58,880
$61,450
$64,560
$70,820
$82,750
$92,780
$99,270
$105,110
$110,470
$111,570
$109,530
$110,840
$113,230
$116,000
$121,700
$134,310
$152,220
19.4%
8.4%
1.6%
–0.8%
–0.2%
1.2%
2.6%
3.2%
2.7%
–2.4%
–2.3%
4.4%
5.1%
9.7%
16.8%
12.1%
7.0%
5.9%
5.1%
1.0%
–1.8%
1.2%
2.2%
2.4%
4.9%
10.4%
13.3%
Washington
Price
Change
$70,110
$76,340
$82,420
$86,030
$84,570
$82,840
$81,440
$82,850
$85,920
$89,620
$83,720
$77,040
$81,260
$85,710
$92,930
$110,480
$123,380
$130,770
$137,490
$144,440
$143,430
$139,050
$137,840
$141,010
$145,160
$157,490
$201,690
$235,070
8.9%
8.0%
4.4%
–1.7%
–2.0%
–1.7%
1.7%
3.7%
4.3%
–6.6%
–8.0%
5.5%
5.5%
8.4%
18.9%
11.7%
6.0%
5.1%
5.1%
–0.7%
–3.1%
–0.9%
2.3%
2.9%
8.5%
28.1%
16.6%
Source: National Association of Realtors (NAR), Real Estate Outlook; Moody’s Economy.com estimates.
Table 4.5
Change in Average Sales Price of SingleFamily Homes in Washington County
Period
1980 to 1985
1985 to 1990
1990 to 1995
1995 to 2000
2000 to 2005
2005 to 2006
2006 to 2007
1980 to 2007
Average Sales Price
of Single-Family Home
$70,825 to $71,578
$71,578 to $79,960
$79,960 to $121,044
$121,044 to $154,259
$154,259 to $278,678
$278,678 to $338,283
$338,283 to $319,881
$70,825 to $310,881
AAGR
.21%
2.2%
8.6%
4.9%
12.5%
21.3%
–5.4%
5.7%
Source: Washington County Board of Realtors.
100
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
The value of nonresidential construction in the five-county region since 1975 totals almost $3.3
billion (in 2007 dollars) (Table 4.6). The record year for nonresidential construction was in 2006,
with $231.5 million in activity driven by Washington County’s $184.2 million in construction
that year (Figure 4.2). Over the 27-year period Washington County has accounted for nearly
two-thirds of the value of nonresidential construction in the region (Table 4.7). Iron County
accounts for about one-quarter and the remaining 10 percent is divided among Beaver, Kane,
and Garfield counties. Nonresidential construction is extremely volatile, particularly in smaller
markets, compared with residential construction due to the “lumpiness” of the sector—a single,
large project creates a dramatic spike in the trend line.
Table 4.6
Value of Nonresidential Construction by County, 1975–2007
Beaver
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
Garfield
$7,498.9
$46.1
$1,520.1
$1,672.3
$1,282.6
$1,831.1
$1,771.7
$182.4
$2,331.0
$2,518.9
$1,972.6
$13.2
$1,929.8
$437.9
$687.7
$1,774.1
$2,194.4
$2,420.0
$8,911.5
$6,360.7
$26,810.8
$23,256.3
$4,822.1
$4,491.3
$12,199.6
$3,934.6
$3,969.0
$2,388.0
$1,060.7
$483.5
$1,933.1
$7,801.1
$4,512.8
$145,020.0
$25.7
$407.1
$258.6
$7,237.3
$66,079.1
$5,051.0
$959.3
$601.0
$4,108.9
$4,245.4
$765.2
$696.6
$5,005.8
$2,883.5
$2,956.3
$1,067.9
$338.0
$5,409.1
$5,108.1
$4,553.3
$2,346.6
$6,502.9
$2,446.5
$2,508.3
$11,057.1
$5,545.8
$384.8
$413.2
$1,702.2
$2,075.5
$1,918.4
$9,469.4
$1,902.2
$166,030.1
Iron
$2,784.8
$6,074.5
$6,879.3
$1,220.9
$3,918.2
$8,819.3
$19,865.1
$2,329.9
$5,502.0
$25,040.8
$23,926.4
$7,558.8
$16,451.4
$13,199.4
$12,076.7
$3,960.0
$18,421.3
$93,810.9
$31,394.2
$65,814.0
$38,718.9
$32,108.0
$31,390.3
$18,707.7
$43,586.8
$64,608.2
$38,428.7
$16,841.2
$17,132.3
$17,323.0
$18,628.8
$27,165.3
$30,699.7
$764,387.2
Kane
$248.1
$701.1
$677.6
$1,241.9
$4,217.4
$1,365.7
$1,588.5
$11,071.7
$1,272.7
$1,289.3
$1,291.6
$877.7
$3,020.0
$2,788.5
$2,165.2
$567.0
$1,390.2
$4,050.4
$4,550.4
$2,092.3
$2,787.5
$7,903.8
$6,915.9
$2,117.0
$303.1
$1,550.8
$1,274.8
$1,336.2
$720.4
$396.5
$2,709.2
$2,854.5
$25,978.4
$103,315.4
Washington
$23,265.6
$15,656.5
$9,841.8
$34,630.5
$25,158.3
$24,912.0
$13,195.8
$25,755.8
$32,044.1
$43,030.2
$94,221.1
$42,885.1
$30,752.9
$26,537.4
$32,615.1
$26,379.2
$31,990.3
$28,771.8
$79,985.2
$55,058.8
$125,597.7
$84,266.3
$135,642.0
$44,494.2
$52,969.3
$95,404.4
$51,305.0
$146,714.1
$55,892.3
$133,529.6
$135,076.9
$184,249.8
$138,533.2
$2,080,362.1
Total
$33,823.1
$22,885.4
$19,177.5
$46,002.8
$100,655.6
$41,979.2
$37,380.3
$39,940.9
$45,258.8
$76,124.6
$122,176.8
$52,031.4
$57,159.9
$45,846.8
$50,501.1
$33,748.1
$54,334.3
$134,462.2
$129,949.5
$133,879.1
$196,261.6
$154,037.3
$181,216.7
$72,318.5
$120,115.9
$171,043.7
$95,362.3
$167,692.7
$76,508.0
$153,808.1
$160,266.5
$231,540.1
$201,626.3
$3,259,114.8
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
101
Figure 4.2
Value of Nonresidential Construction in the Five-County Region
(millions of constant 2007 dollars)
$250.0
Total
Washington
Iron
Other
$200.0
$150.0
$100.0
$50.0
07
20
05
20
01
03
20
20
99
19
19
97
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
81
83
19
19
79
19
77
19
19
75
$0.0
Table 4.7
Value and Share of
by County
Washington
Iron
Garfield
Beaver
Kane
Total
Total Value
1975–2007
$2,080,362.1
$764,387.2
$166,030.1
$145,020.0
$103,315.4
$3,259,114.8
Share
63.8%
23.5%
5.1%
4.4%
3.2%
100%
102
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Beaver County
In 2007 the housing inventory of the county totaled 2,980 units. Fifteen percent of these units
were recreational, or seasonal units and the remaining 2,479 units were occupied year-round. Of
the year-round units 83.1 percent are owner-occupied and
16.9 percent are renter-occupied (Table 4.8).
Table 4.8
Since 1990, the number of residential units added to the
housing inventory each year has averaged 40 units.
However, there have been a few years of much higher
activity, most notably 1981 when 144 new residential units
received building permits (Table 4.9). This spike in activity
in 1981, shown in Figure 4.3, was due to the addition of
102 multifamily units.
Housing Profile for Beaver
County, 2007
Total Housing Units
Vacant Year Round
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
2,980
2,530
51
2,479
2,061
83.1%
418
16.9%
450
15.1%
10.7%
The timing of the housing cycle in Beaver County is very
similar to the statewide cycle. Relatively high levels of
residential construction activity were reached in 1977–78,
1995–97, and most recently 2006–07. Likewise, all of
these periods were also peak years for new residential
construction statewide. With the exception of 1981, the
1980s in Beaver County were a decade of very low levels of new residential construction. In
1987 only one building permit was issued in the entire county. In most years during this decade
Figure 4.3
Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units in Beaver County, 1975-2007
160
Total Residential
140
Single-Family Homes
Apartments
120
C ondominiums
Dwelling Units
C abins
100
Manufactured / Mobile Homes
80
60
40
20
07
20
05
20
03
20
01
20
99
19
97
19
95
93
19
19
91
19
87
89
19
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
19
75
0
Note: Condominiums include duplexes and twin homes.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
103
Cabins
Manufactured /
Mobile Homes
Total
Residential
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Shelters
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
8
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
8
there were fewer than 20 new residential
units added annually.
(3 or more units)
Condominiums
34
46
40
50
38
41
40
18
24
11
15
7
1
9
8
11
8
8
15
29
41
45
45
28
38
30
20
19
32
16
27
44
33
18
0
24
0
0
0
102
8
4
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
3
3
9
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
7
0
3
1
1
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
9
10
23
8
14
9
7
4
11
5
4
6
18
6
52
49
65
53
40
41
144
27
28
11
15
14
1
9
12
11
8
11
22
38
65
74
67
59
58
41
25
32
40
22
36
68
54
Apartments
Duplexes and
Twin Homes
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Single-Family
Homes
Table 4.9
Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units in
Beaver County, 1975–2007
In the 1990s the level of new residential
construction began to accelerate, reaching
a peak of 74 units in 1996, which
coincides with the opening of one of the
largest hog farms in the country, Circle
Four Farms. Circle Four is a major
employer in Beaver County and its
opening expanded employment and led to
increased demand for housing.
For several years after the mid-1990s new
residential construction ranged between
20 and 40 units annually. In recent years
about 20 percent of the new residential
units have been manufactured homes. By
2006 housing activity picked up
significantly and permits were issued for
68 new residential units, the third highest
year ever. In 2007, the number of permits
dropped by 20 percent to 54 units,
consistent with the 22 percent drop
statewide.
In summary, residential construction in
Beaver County is characterized by: (1)
slow annual rates of activity, usually less
than 2 percent increases in inventory; (2)
expansions and contractions that are
similar in timing to the statewide
residential cycle; (3) a relatively high
percentage of manufactured housing, at 20
percent; and (4) a high concentration of
single-family units—the number of new
apartment units is very limited
Utah.
Nonresidential construction reflects
capital investment in new buildings and structures. Typically, new nonresidential investment in
Beaver County ranges between $2 million and $5 million annually; however, during the mid- to
late 1990s there was an extended period of high levels of investment in nonresidential
construction (Table 4.10 and Figure 4.4). The most notable years were 1995–96, when over $45
million was invested in the construction of Circle Four Farms, owned by the consortium of
Smithfield Food, Murphy Family Farms, Prestage Farms, and Carroll’s Farms. Circle Four Farms
is one of the largest hog farms in the West, with 80,000 sows. Each year over 1.2 million hogs
are shipped from Circle Four to California for processing. The large investment in the structures
104
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 4.10
Value of Nonresidential Construction by Type in Beaver County, 1975–2007
Hotels
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
Churches Industrial Hospitals
$0.0
$0.0
$1,155.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,877.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,417.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,663.7
$0.0
$0.0
$6.6
$0.0
$1,897.6
$0.0
$1,600.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,078.3
$1,252.1
$11,948.1
$77.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$370.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$301.6
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$148.2
$2,487.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$3,384.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$922.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$183.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,921.2
$0.0
$8.9
$0.0
$613.6
$0.0
$0.0
$355.5
$156.0
$9,938.9
$0.0
$0.0
$507.4
$0.0
$257.2
$0.0
$75.6
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$46.4
$691.1
$3,590.1
$0.0
$611.6
$0.0
$8,893.6 $10,985.4
Office
Retail
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$568.1
$0.0
$156.2
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$528.8
$526.5
$0.0
$953.1
$184.4
$500.5
$80.3
$91.8
$109.1
$41.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$54.6
$94.7
$106.2
$3,995.6
$0.0
$7,421.9
$0.0
$7,498.9
$46.1
$0.0
$0.0
$46.1
$141.8
$0.0
$223.3
$1,520.1
$666.5
$0.0
$1,005.7
$1,672.3
$344.3
$0.0
$370.1
$1,282.6
$0.0
$0.0
$1,831.1
$1,831.1
$562.8
$0.0
$1,052.7
$1,771.7
$0.0
$0.0
$182.4
$182.4
$376.4
$1,817.8
$136.7
$2,331.0
$588.2
$47.1
$961.3
$2,518.9
$60.5
$0.0
$35.1
$1,972.6
$0.0
$0.0
$13.2
$13.2
$0.0
$1,920.2
$9.6
$1,929.8
$0.0
$0.0
$67.8
$437.9
$0.0
$143.2
$361.3
$687.7
$162.5
$0.0
$194.6
$1,774.1
$31.4
$0.0
$1,634.3
$2,194.4
$31.2
$235.3
$1,627.0
$2,420.0
$0.0
$5,770.8
$3,140.7
$8,911.5
$0.0
$28.6
$5,077.4
$6,360.7
$352.2
$0.0 $22,689.3
$26,810.8
$39.8
$0.0 $22,707.1
$23,256.3
$320.1
$0.0
$3,808.1
$4,822.1
$0.0
$29.6
$4,007.7
$4,491.3
$123.5
$246.5
$1,625.6
$12,199.6
$517.0
$0.0
$1,330.6
$3,934.6
$0.0
$0.0
$974.5
$3,969.0
$0.0
$0.0
$530.1
$2,388.0
$320.7
$0.0
$664.5
$1,060.7
$0.0
$0.0
$483.5
$483.5
$95.1
$335.1
$710.8
$1,933.1
$515.9
$0.0
$2,522.0
$7,801.1
$1,148.3
$0.0
$1,394.6
$4,512.8
$6,444.3 $17,996.1 $81,372.9 $145,020.0
Public
Other
Total
and silos has contributed substantially to the local economy. Employment at Circle Four Farms
totals 450 jobs, with an annual payroll of $13 million.
In 1999, the value of nonresidential construction was boosted by a $10 million investment in the
construction of the Beaver Valley Hospital, a city-owned, 49–swing-bed facility. The hospital has
two surgical suites, two birthing units, an emergency room, and a 36-bed long-term care unit and
13-bed acute care unit.
Another large nonresidential project was the $5.7 million Milford High School in 1993. The new
high school is the largest public building built in the county since 1975. The largest industrial
project over the past 30 years is the Heritage Plastics plant in Milford. This 50,000-square-foot,
$1.7 million plant received a building permit in 2006. Heritage Plastics is a Texas company that
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
105
Figure 4.4
Value of Nonresidential Construction in Beaver County,
1975–2007
$30.0
$25.0
$20.0
$15.0
$10.0
$5.0
5
7
20
0
20
0
3
1
20
0
9
20
0
5
3
1
9
7
19
9
19
9
19
9
19
9
19
9
5
3
1
9
7
7
19
8
19
8
19
8
19
8
19
8
19
7
19
7
19
7
5
$0.0
manufactures electrical conduits, utility ducts, and fittings for power, cable, Internet, and
telephone data and voice transmission lines.
Beaver City’s location on I-15 has been particularly advantageous for the motel sector. Since
1975 there has been $11.9 million in new motel construction in the county. Generally, the
construction cost for each new motel is from $1 to $2 million and the interval between periods
of construction activity is four or five years. The exception is 2006 and 2007, when the Oak Tree
Inn in Milford and the Super 8 in Beaver were built in consecutive years.
The investment in nonresidential construction in Beaver County since 1975 totals $145 million
in constant 2007 dollars (Table 4.11). The largest single category is “other,” which includes the
construction of silos, buildings, and structures at Circle Four Farms. Public buildings rank
second in total activity with $18 million in construction, followed by the hotel/motel category
with nearly $12 million.
Table 4.11
Value and Share of Nonresidential Construction
by Type in Beaver County,
1975–2007
Other
Public Buildings & Projects
Hotels & Motels
Hospital & Institutional Bldgs.
Industrial/Warehouse/Manufacturing Bldgs.
Retail, Mercantile, Restaurant
Office, Bank, Professional Bldgs.
Churches
Total
Total Value Share
$81,372.9 56.1%
$17,996.1 12.4%
$11,948.1
8.2%
$10,985.4
7.6%
$8,893.6
6.1%
$6,444.3
4.4%
$3,995.6
2.8%
$3,384.0
2.3%
$145,020.0 100%
106
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Garfield County
In 2007 Garfield County had a housing inventory of 3,290 units (Table 4.12). Nearly one-third
of the total units in the county were seasonal or recreation units; about the same percent of
seasonal units as Kane County. The total number of
Table 4.12
occupied units was 2,164, of which only 331 or 15.3
Housing Profile for Garfield
percent were rental units.
County, 2007
Between 1975 and 1995 annual residential building
permits in Garfield County exceeded 40 units only once,
with 44 units in 1977 (Figure 4.5 and Table 4.13). During
this 20-year period new residential units generally
fluctuated between 20 and 30 units, but did fall as low as
six units in 1989. However, in the mid-1990s new
residential construction activity suddenly jumped to
around 60 units annually and maintained that level until
recently. In 2006 the number of new residential permits
issued increased to 86 units, an all-time record, which
was broken in 2007 with a total of 139 units.
Total Housing Units
Vacant Year Round
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
3,290
2,208
44
2,164
1,833
84.7%
331
15.3%
1,082
32.9%
15.9%
In 2007, 80 percent of the new residential units receiving building permits were in the
unincorporated areas of Garfield County, and two-thirds of these units were manufactured
homes. A similar pattern exists for 2006, when a large majority of the dwelling units receiving
Figure 4.5
Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units in Garfield County, 1975-2007
160
Total Residential
140
Single-Family Homes
C ondominiums
Dwelling Units
120
C abins
100
80
60
40
20
07
20
05
20
03
20
01
20
99
19
97
19
95
19
19
93
91
19
89
19
87
19
19
85
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
19
75
0
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
107
Cabins
Manufactured /
Mobile Homes
Total
Residential
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Shelters
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
building permits were also in the
unincorporated areas and one-third were
manufactured homes.
(3 or more units)
Condominiums
10
23
39
38
27
18
28
23
30
39
27
35
23
19
6
8
8
10
10
16
29
43
35
14
17
24
14
25
33
30
40
57
55
Apartments
Duplexes and
Twin Homes
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Single-Family
Homes
Table 4.13
Garfield County, 1975–2007
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
16
11
11
18
31
19
41
21
22
16
14
14
14
18
14
0
6
5
2
3
2
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
11
6
13
8
10
17
31
23
19
17
8
10
7
11
65
12
31
44
40
30
20
33
24
30
39
27
35
23
19
6
8
19
26
37
33
53
69
76
50
89
68
55
58
55
54
61
86
139
Utah.
The number of new cabins receiving
building permits in recent years has been
consistently around 15 units. While there
was no new apartment construction
between 1975 and 2006, in 2007 a threeunit building was permitted. Garfield
County has yet to have any condominium
development. Detached single-family
homes dominate residential development
in the county and reached a record high in
2006 with 57 units, followed by another
strong performance in 2007 of 55 units.
Since 1975, building permits for $166
million (in 2007 dollars) in nonresidential
construction have been issued in Garfield
County. The single largest project was a
uranium processing plant built in 1979 and
valued at $56 million. The unusually high
value of this project created a spike in the
historical data as shown in Figure 4.6.
Typically, the value of nonresidential
construction in Garfield County is less
than $6 million annually. There have been
a few exceptions in the past 32 years,
including 1977, 1978, 1999, and 2006
(Table 4.14). In 1999 the largest project
was the Garfield County Jail and in 2006
the Panguitch Medical Clinic. The hotel
and motel sector has been the most
consistent and active sector over the years,
with new building exceeding $1 million in
10 of the 32 years since 1975.
Due to the size of the uranium processing
plant, the industrial sector has captured 34.7 percent of the nonresidential construction activity
since 1975 in Garfield County (Table 4.15). The hotel and motel sector ranks second with $33.8
million and a 20.4 percent share, followed by public buildings at $22.9 million and a 13.8 percent
share.
108
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 4.14
Value of Nonresidential Construction by Type in Garfield County, 1975–2007
Hotels
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$4,330.4
$8,831.5
$0.0
$3,102.6
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$289.8
$1,238.3
$2,352.8
$1,670.5
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,715.3
$0.0
$0.0
$174.7
$2,689.5
$0.0
$48.0
$326.5
$226.9
$0.0
$4,795.9
$0.0
$902.2
$2,467.3
$1,041.8
$0.0
$11.2
$0.0
$1,408.9
$0.0
$613.9
$0.0
$1,362.3
$12.3
$3,446.0
$0.0
$149.5
$0.0
$136.8
$124.4
$0.0
$0.0
$231.9
$1,170.3
$206.9
$0.0
$0.0
$59.1
$0.0
$181.6
$228.0
$0.0
$33,791.5 $11,755.4
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$56,036.3
$403.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$56.5
$110.5
$0.0
$254.8
$223.1
$451.7
$15.4
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$71.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$57,622.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,786.9
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$8,117.5
$0.0
$9,904.4
Office
Retail
$0.0
$0.0
$8.1
$0.0
$0.0
$704.3
$0.0
$0.0
$87.9
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$239.4
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$520.3
$7.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$756.0
$0.0
$9.0
$2,332.7
$0.0
$0.0
$25.7
$25.7
$67.1
$299.4
$40.7
$407.1
$0.0
$0.0
$250.5
$258.6
$0.0
$2,809.2
$97.7
$7,237.3
$75.7
$8.6
$1,126.9
$66,079.1
$529.0
$1.6
$310.3
$5,051.0
$295.5
$412.5
$251.3
$959.3
$336.2
$140.7
$124.1
$601.0
$61.9
$1,981.3
$449.8
$4,108.9
$117.6
$18.8
$85.6
$4,245.4
$0.0
$396.1
$369.1
$765.2
$536.0
$0.0
$160.6
$696.6
$0.0
$3,200.3
$90.2
$5,005.8
$205.6
$2,456.7
$46.5
$2,883.5
$41.8
$0.0
$225.1
$2,956.3
$153.7
$192.1
$347.6
$1,067.9
$9.5
$0.0
$101.7
$338.0
$370.8
$84.7
$101.3
$5,409.1
$0.0
$669.9
$718.8
$5,108.1
$664.7
$107.2
$952.6
$4,553.3
$588.6
$1,055.7
$436.4
$2,346.6
$1,316.6
$1,023.1
$2,531.3
$6,502.9
$551.3
$0.8
$308.5
$2,446.5
$370.3
$0.0
$740.2
$2,508.3
$0.0
$6,835.4
$775.7
$11,057.1
$1,565.9
$364.4
$3,466.0
$5,545.8
$0.0
$3.5
$120.2
$384.8
$0.0
$136.8
$276.4
$413.2
$0.0
$136.4
$163.7
$1,702.2
$77.6
$0.0
$1,719.9
$2,075.5
$0.0
$23.6
$1,079.7
$1,918.4
$0.0
$79.0
$1,091.3
$9,469.4
$0.0
$435.0
$1,230.2
$1,902.2
$7,935.2 $22,872.8 $19,815.4 $166,030.1
Public
Other
Total
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
109
Figure 4.6
Value of Nonresidential Construction in Garfield County,
1975–2007
$70.0
$60.0
$50.0
$40.0
$30.0
$20.0
$10.0
07
05
20
03
20
01
20
99
20
19
97
19
95
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
19
83
19
81
79
19
77
19
19
19
75
$0.0
Table 4.15
by Type in Garfield County, 1975–2007
Hotels & Motels
Other
Churches & other Religious Bldgs.
Total
Total Value Share
$57,622.7 34.7%
$33,791.5 20.4%
$22,872.8 13.8%
$19,815.4 11.9%
$11,755.4
7.1%
$9,904.4
6.0%
$7,935.2
4.8%
$2,332.7
1.4%
$166,030.1 100%
110
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Iron County
In 2007 Iron County had a housing inventory of 18,127 units (Table 4.16). Only about one in
ten housing units in the county were for seasonal or recreational use, the lowest share among the
five southwest counties. The total number of occupied
Table 4.16
units in the county in 2007 was 15,387, of which 3,936 or
Housing Profile for Iron
25.6 percent were rental units. Iron County has the
County, 2007
highest percentage of rental units, well ahead of the 17.7
percent share for Washington County. The unusually
high number of rental units is a reflection of the offTotal Housing Units
18,127
16,028
campus housing needs of students at Southern Utah
Vacant Year Round
641
University. The recent housing boom in Iron County has Total Occupied Year Round
15,387
added significantly to the housing inventory,
Owner-Occupied
11,450
74.4%
consequently one out of every four housing units in the
Renter-Occupied
3,936
county has been built since 2000.
25.6%
2,099
11.6%
24.9%
The residential construction cycle in Iron County can be
divided into two distinct periods: before 1990 and after
1990. The first period is characterized by low levels of
new residential construction. Between 1975 and 1990 the
annual number of permits for new residential construction exceeded 300 units in only one year,
1977. But since 1990 the number of permits has fallen below 300 units in only two years, 1991,
when permits for 168 units were issued, and 1998, when 276 units were permitted. The sudden
and dramatic rise in residential construction activity is shown in Figure 4.7 and Table 4.17.
Figure 4.7
Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units in Iron County, 1975-2007
1,000
Total Residential
900
Single-Family Homes
800
Apartments
C ondominiums
Dwelling Units
700
C abins
600
500
400
300
200
100
07
20
05
20
03
20
01
20
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
83
85
19
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
19
75
0
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
111
Cabins
Manufactured /
Mobile Homes
Total
Residential
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
18
0
23
0
0
3
0
0
0
6
18
58
35
22
134
Other Shelters
6
0
0
8
18
16
50
6
24
36
14
2
0
2
0
6
12
30
6
16
44
32
16
12
20
76
66
50
2
100
130
256
244
(3 or more units)
Condominiums
120
257
271
282
194
86
82
43
81
111
50
56
25
32
63
63
106
180
265
401
324
449
256
202
212
195
162
216
244
329
643
397
206
0
13
39
4
7
16
64
0
46
38
40
24
0
0
34
4
17
145
248
124
87
267
109
8
4
90
55
127
21
50
87
38
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
19
6
7
10
21
14
12
14
12
6
10
15
27
15
26
33
0
1
0
1
0
13
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
78
62
96
69
95
79
39
59
44
18
23
15
27
31
34
13
126
271
310
295
219
131
201
49
151
185
104
82
25
34
97
73
168
468
605
644
557
864
474
276
309
417
307
432
315
591
941
773
656
Apartments
Duplexes and
Twin Homes
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Single-Family
Homes
Table 4.17
Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units in Iron
County, 1975–2007
The increase in new residential
construction in the 1990s was partly due
to a large number of new apartment units.
Over a six-year period in the 1990s
building permits were issued for nearly
1,000 new apartment units. The peak
apartment year was 1996, with 267 new
units. The new apartment activity in 1996
pushed the total number of new
residential units in that year to 864, an alltime record that was not broken until
2005 with 941 units.
During the current decade the level of
residential construction has been pushed
higher by new condominium and duplex/
twin-home construction rather than
apartment construction; apartment
construction has contributed but at a
lower level than in the 1990s. In 2007
condominiums and duplexes/twin-homes
totaled 378 units, compared with 206
detached single-family units, and
accounted for 58 percent of all new
residential construction.
Since 1990 building permits have been
issued for 8,870 residential units in Iron
County. New residential construction in
Cedar City has accounted for two-thirds
of these units, while Enoch City and
unincorporated Iron County have
captured nearly all the remaining new
home construction.
Since 1975 Iron County has issued
building permits for $764.4 million (in
constant 2007 dollars) of nonresidential
Utah.
construction (Table 4.18). The peak
nonresidential year was 1992, with $93.8 million in new construction (Figure 4.8), which
included the $80 million American Pacific facility for the manufacture of automobile airbag
parts. American Pacific is the highest-value manufacturing facility in Iron County history. In
1994, another large manufacturer, O’Sullivan’s Furniture, received a permit for a $21 million
manufacturing plant. Unfortunately O’Sullivan’s ceased operation in Iron County in 2001. The
two highest-value retail buildings built in the county are the Wal-Mart and Home Deport. The
$9 million Wal-Mart was built in 2000 and the $4 million Home Depot in 2004. Other large
projects in recent years include the Canyon View High School for $28 million in 1999, the $26
112
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
million SUU Physical Education Building in 2000, and the $19 million Valley View Medical
Center (IHC) in 2001.
Since 1975 the leading nonresidential construction sector has been public buildings (including
public schools and SUU), with $215.8 million in new construction (Table 4.19). The secondranked sector is industrial construction with $214.0 million. These two sectors have dominated
nonresidential construction with over 50 percent of permit value since 1975. Although much
lower, both the retail and office sectors have respectable levels of construction activity. Since
1975 building permits have been issued for $80.9 million in retail and restaurants and $54.1
million in new office buildings.
Table 4.18
Value of Nonresidential Construction by Type in Iron County, 1975–2007
Hotels
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
Office
Retail
Public
Other
Total
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0 $1,441.6
$876.9
$0.0
$466.3
$2,784.8
$2,096.5
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$662.5 $1,006.3
$1,749.3
$559.8
$6,074.5
$2,464.0
$0.0
$2,763.9
$0.0
$0.0 $1,617.0
$0.0
$34.4
$6,879.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0 $1,220.9
$0.0
$0.0
$1,220.9
$0.0
$172.2
$509.6
$0.0 $1,721.5 $1,084.6
$6.9
$423.5
$3,918.2
$0.0
$0.0
$2,771.5
$0.0 $1,833.6 $1,690.9
$1,020.7
$1,502.6
$8,819.3
$0.0
$56.3
$2,172.4
$0.0
$0.0 $6,190.7
$0.0 $11,445.8 $19,865.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$873.1
$304.9
$0.0
$1,151.9
$2,329.9
$3,640.6
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,861.4
$5,502.0
$3,424.2 $1,918.2
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$264.2 $18,982.0
$452.2 $25,040.8
$6,754.0
$0.0
$312.5
$0.0
$0.0
$948.9 $15,125.1
$785.9 $23,926.4
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0 $3,553.4
$452.2
$3,013.0
$540.2
$7,558.8
$0.0 $2,058.2
$576.0
$0.0
$373.4 $1,120.3 $11,582.8
$740.8 $16,451.4
$0.0
$0.0
$8,223.3
$0.0
$72.0
$0.0
$4,646.2
$258.0 $13,199.4
$1,093.5
$457.3
$51.7
$0.0 $1,683.5 $4,565.1
$469.2
$3,756.4 $12,076.7
$0.0 $2,062.0
$401.4
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$777.7
$718.9
$3,960.0
$0.0
$0.0
$245.8
$0.0
$66.2 $4,083.8 $11,651.9
$2,373.7 $18,421.3
$4,985.3
$0.0 $83,006.0
$0.0 $1,268.6
$498.8
$1,037.1
$3,015.1 $93,810.9
$2,347.3
$574.5
$7,643.6
$0.0
$552.4 $1,322.8 $16,439.2
$2,514.5 $31,394.2
$0.0 $2,351.2 $28,251.6
$0.0 $3,266.3 $2,392.0 $26,267.7
$3,285.3 $65,814.0
$0.0 $3,241.8
$104.8
$637.0 $1,938.3 $3,593.2 $24,372.4
$4,831.3 $38,718.9
$0.0
$218.0 $18,320.5
$256.3 $4,761.5 $2,085.0
$369.7
$6,097.1 $32,108.0
$7,319.4 $7,898.2
$473.7
$0.0 $4,266.5 $4,561.2
$3,229.6
$3,641.8 $31,390.3
$379.5
$0.0
$556.8
$3,809.2 $7,123.1
$934.9
$4.6
$5,899.5 $18,707.7
$0.0
$0.0
$665.9
$5,496.6 $2,651.9
$995.6 $30,942.2
$2,834.6 $43,586.8
$0.0
$0.0 $11,371.2
$0.0 $3,333.9 $10,828.8 $28,221.3 $10,853.0 $64,608.2
$0.0
$0.0
$949.5 $19,638.5
$146.5 $2,554.8 $12,018.3
$3,121.0 $38,428.7
$3,416.7 $1,786.5
$2,320.3
$2,969.3 $3,742.4
$34.2
$741.6
$1,830.1 $16,841.2
$0.0 $3,819.0
$4,099.3
$2,096.4 $1,642.2
$688.8
$3,134.4
$1,652.3 $17,132.3
$3,375.1
$0.0
$2,605.1
$0.0 $1,326.8 $8,366.5
$0.0
$1,649.5 $17,323.0
$0.0
$0.0
$2,952.8
$0.0 $5,058.4 $4,856.4
$1.2
$5,760.1 $18,628.8
$0.0
$0.0 $19,925.8
$0.0
$0.0 $3,787.5
$0.0
$3,452.1 $27,165.3
$0.0 $2,935.0 $12,724.9
$100.0
$700.0 $7,955.1
$0.0
$6,284.7 $30,699.7
$41,296.2 $29,548.5 $213,999.9 $35,003.2 $54,059.3 $80,882.2 $215,804.2 $93,793.7 $764,387.2
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
113
Figure 4.8
Value of Nonresidential Construction in Iron County, 1975–2007
$100.0
$90.0
$80.0
$70.0
$60.0
$50.0
$40.0
$30.0
$20.0
$10.0
07
05
20
20
03
20
01
99
20
97
19
19
95
93
19
91
19
19
89
19
85
87
19
19
83
19
81
77
79
19
19
19
19
75
$0.0
Table 4.19
by Type in Iron County, 1975–2007
Other
Hotels & Motels
Total
Total Value Share
$215,804.2 28.2%
$213,999.9 28.0%
$93,793.7 12.3%
$80,882.2 10.6%
$54,059.3
7.1%
$41,296.2
5.4%
$35,003.2
4.6%
$29,548.5
3.9%
$764,387.2 100%
114
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Kane County
In 2007 Kane County had a housing inventory of 5,094 units (Table 4.20). Over one-third of the
total units in the county were seasonal or recreational units, the highest percent of seasonal units
among the five southwestern counties. The number of
Table 4.20
total occupied units was 3,288, of which only 485 or 14.7
Housing
Profile for Kane
percent were rental units. As a share of occupied housing
County, 2007
inventory, Kane County has the smallest proportion of
rental units of the five counties.
Total Housing Units
Vacant Year Round
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
5,094
3,355
68
3,288
2,803
85.3%
485
14.7%
1,739
34.1%
26.1%
Kane County has had four distinct periods of new
residential construction (Figure 4.9 and Table 4.21).
During the 1975–83 period, new residential construction
typically totaled between 80 and 100 units per year. This
period was dominated by detached single-family homes,
which accounted for 82 percent of all new units. The
next period, 1984 to 1993, is characterized by much
lower levels of new home construction, generally below
60 units annually but in one year falling as low as 14
units. In the mid-1990s residential construction abruptly
expanded. From 1994 to 2003 residential construction in the county moved to a new level of
120 to 130 new units annually. This bump-up in activity is attributable to much higher levels of
development of cabins. During much of this period cabins accounted for over 50 percent of
Figure 4.9
Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units in Kane County, 1975-2007
350
Total Residential
Single-Family Homes
C abins
300
C ondominiums
Dwelling Units
250
Apartments
200
150
100
50
07
20
05
20
03
20
01
20
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
19
19
75
77
0
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
115
Cabins
Manufactured /
Mobile Homes
Total
Residential
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
2
0
0
0
0
32
72
5
Other Shelters
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
2
2
0
0
12
0
2
0
4
0
0
(3 or more units)
Condominiums
23
72
39
72
59
79
78
80
93
17
57
60
59
57
14
26
16
15
21
57
46
49
50
21
24
41
20
23
15
16
126
124
65
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
46
44
54
48
55
57
66
72
53
74
68
73
26
92
106
64
0
17
7
9
7
17
15
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
9
7
10
35
17
26
28
36
39
17
13
32
14
46
30
17
23
89
46
81
98
96
93
99
97
21
57
60
59
57
14
30
76
70
72
121
131
125
135
128
132
135
127
104
122
56
300
332
151
Apartments
Duplexes and
Twin Homes
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Single-Family
Homes
Table 4.21
Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units in Kane
County, 1975–2007
new residential construction.
Manufactured homes also become a much
greater share of the residential market, in
some years representing nearly 30 percent
of new units.
The fourth period began in 2005, when
residential construction suddenly exploded
in Kane County, reaching an all-time high
of 300 new units, more than double the
previous residential record. In 2005,
building permits were issued for 126 new
detached single-family homes, 32
condominiums, 92 cabins, and 46
manufactured homes—all of these set new
records. In 2006, new residential permits
jumped another 10 percent to 332 units as
the number of condominiums increased
from 32 to 72 units.
Typically the value of nonresidential
construction in Kane County rarely
exceeds a few million dollars. However,
there have been four exceptional years:
1982, 1996, 1997, and 2007. The spikes in
activity in each of these years are shown in
Table 4.22 and Figure 4.10. In 1982,
permits were issued for $9.0 million in
public buildings, which generated a
significant jump in nonresidential value
for that year. In 1996 and 1997 the $5
million Kane County Hospital and the $5
million Kane County Medical Clinic led to
increased nonresidential construction for
those years. And in 2007 the
groundbreaking for Amangiri Resort near
Lake Powell boosted the value of hotel
construction with a permit for $16.2
Utah.
million, and the Red Desert Hotel in
Kanab received a permit for a $5.0 million hotel. The hotel/motel sector accounts for 32 percent
of the value of nonresidential construction in Kane County since 1975 (Table 4.23).
Over the next few years the Amangiri Resort will contribute to higher levels of nonresidential
construction for the hotel sector in Kane County. The development costs for the first phase of
the resort are estimated at $125 million. Amangiri will be managed by Amanresorts of Singapore.
The resort will occupy 1,900 acres, 600 of which will be set aside for luxury spas and villas. The
resort will create 200 permanent jobs for local residents.
116
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 4.22
Value of Nonresidential Construction by Type in Kane County, 1975–2007
Hotels
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$578.6
$0.0
$1,171.7
$0.0
$661.7
$2,133.5
$0.0
$43.7
$0.0
$0.0
$2,459.5
$3,547.1
$35.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$852.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$21,153.9
$32,637.4
$47.1
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$3,098.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1,050.8
$0.0
$0.0
$2,056.4
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$7.7
$0.0
$0.0
$313.1
$155.1
$467.2
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$7,196.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$126.6
$0.0
$47.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$514.0
$0.0
$47.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$224.5
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$120.9
$0.0
$641.4
$5,354.7
$146.0
$5,158.8
$41.7
$0.0
$64.2
$0.0
$32.7
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$49.3
$0.0
$36.3
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$51.9
$0.0
$2,144.9 $10,513.5
Office
$0.0
$50.3
$48.6
$923.3
$1,032.9
$0.0
$793.5
$52.1
$315.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$103.2
$0.0
$0.0
$99.1
$0.0
$113.4
$186.0
$285.3
$0.0
$0.0
$377.2
$0.0
$431.6
$556.3
$6.8
$188.4
$131.3
$0.0
$0.0
$1,115.7
$6,810.8
Retail
Public
Other
Total
$0.0
$0.0
$201.1
$248.1
$398.3
$0.0
$252.4
$701.1
$385.0
$0.0
$244.0
$677.6
$190.8
$0.0
$127.8
$1,241.9
$0.0
$0.0
$85.7
$4,217.4
$507.0
$0.0
$732.2
$1,365.7
$0.0
$0.0
$747.1
$1,588.5
$1,016.4 $8,973.8
$450.9 $11,071.7
$661.3
$0.0
$295.7
$1,272.7
$0.0
$117.6
$0.0
$1,289.3
$0.0
$0.0
$240.7
$1,291.6
$34.4
$0.0
$181.5
$877.7
$459.3
$0.0
$427.1
$3,020.0
$0.0
$0.0
$114.9
$2,788.5
$330.3
$397.7 $1,345.9
$2,165.2
$0.0
$288.1
$278.9
$567.0
$96.2
$626.7
$568.1
$1,390.2
$793.4
$0.0
$565.2
$4,050.4
$0.0
$0.0
$889.9
$4,550.4
$199.8
$334.2 $1,336.6
$2,092.3
$973.0
$5.2 $1,090.1
$2,787.5
$63.7
$899.5
$789.3
$7,903.8
$0.0
$0.0 $1,143.9
$6,915.9
$395.0
$595.8
$707.4
$2,117.0
$0.0
$5.9
$233.0
$303.1
$0.0
$0.0
$234.5
$1,550.8
$72.5
$483.6
$162.4
$1,274.8
$362.9
$782.7
$134.5
$1,336.2
$88.7
$0.0
$407.1
$720.4
$0.0
$0.0
$265.2
$396.5
$0.0
$247.7 $2,461.5
$2,709.2
$87.4
$0.0 $2,767.1
$2,854.5
$0.0 $2,235.4 $1,421.5 $25,978.4
$7,115.2 $15,993.9 $20,903.2 $103,315.4
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
117
Figure 4.10
Value of Nonresidential Construction in Kane County, 1975–2007
$30.0
$25.0
$20.0
$15.0
$10.0
$5.0
05
07
20
20
01
03
20
20
99
97
19
19
93
95
19
91
19
19
87
89
19
19
83
85
19
19
81
19
77
79
19
19
19
75
$0.0
Table 4.23
by Type in Kane County, 1975–2007
Hotels & Motels
Other
Total
Total Value Share
$32,637.4 31.6%
$20,903.2 20.2%
$15,993.9 15.5%
$10,513.5 10.2%
$7,196.3
7.0%
$7,115.2
6.9%
$6,810.8
6.6%
$2,144.9
2.1%
$103,315.4 100%
118
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Washington County
In 2007, Washington County had a housing inventory of
56,316 units (Table 4.24). Recreational and seasonal units
account for 12.2 percent of the inventory, an estimated
6,852 units comprising primarily time-share units and
second homes. There were 47,485 occupied units, of
which 82.3 percent were owner-occupied and the
remaining 17.7 percent renter-occupied. Since 2000,
19,800 residential permits have been issued in
Washington County, which amounts to over one-third of
the county’s housing inventory.
Table 4.24
Housing Profile for
Washington County, 2007
Total Housing Units
Vacant Year Round
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
56,316
49,464
1,979
47,485
39,065
82.3%
8,420
17.7%
6,852
12.2%
35.2%
The Washington County housing trend line shows 1993
as a significant year for residential construction (Figure
4.11and Table 4.25).17 Prior to 1993 the number of
residential building permits issued annually had been
averaging around 1,000 units, but suddenly in 1993 the
number jumped to over 2,000 units. This dramatic increase signaled the development of large
Figure 4.11
Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units in Washington County,
1975-2007
4,500
Total Residential
Single-Family Homes
Apartments
C ondominiums
4,000
Dwelling Units
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
07
20
05
20
03
20
01
20
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
19
75
0
17 Note that 1985 was an aberration created by a proposed significant increase in the cost of building permits in
1986, which induced builders to apply for an unusually high number of permits in 1985, primarily for apartment
units. Consequently, the number of building permits issued in 1985 is artificially high and does not represent actual
demand for new residential units.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
119
(3 or more units)
Other Shelters
Cabins
Manufactured /
Mobile Homes
Total
Residential
0
2
6
10
8
6
6
20
24
70
150
96
22
12
16
16
6
28
40
112
126
112
68
20
84
52
66
32
114
92
184
18
18
0
20
0
26
0
72
0
322
0
156
0
26
0
143
0
87
0
303
0
430
0 2,298
0
259
0
43
0
33
0
24
0
51
0
0
3
11
16
189
28
410
198
187
238
286
88
74
26
194
61
37
136
66
208
92
178
133
416
316
669
319
680
119
447
63
413
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
24
42
26
21
25
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
74
161
210
131
113
81
83
60
50
45
41
21
22
50
27
16
125
446
562
841
714
459
517
431
648
905
3,128
896
533
493
482
805
1,048
1,266
2,114
2,697
2,017
1,929
1,514
1,687
1,519
1,562
1,740
1,995
2,678
3,794
3,860
2,256
1,954
Apartments
105
404
460
467
524
406
343
309
321
405
680
541
468
448
442
738
974
1,150
1,708
1,937
1,375
1,180
1,203
1,364
1,277
1,258
1,329
1,611
1,811
2,692
2,826
1,701
1,488
Condominiums
Duplexes and
Twin Homes
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Single-Family
Homes
Table 4.25
Washington County, 1975–2007
second-home communities and a
higher profile for Washington County
as a retirement destination.
Fortunately, the timing of these
developments coincided with a period
of exceptional economic growth and
prosperity in Utah and the
southwestern states. Most notably the
Las Vegas area became the fastestgrowing and most publicized
metropolitan area in the country. The
growth and notoriety of Las Vegas
helped introduce real estate developers
and home buyers to Utah’s southwest
region. For a number of years the
“spillover” effect of the Las Vegas
market has contributed, in tangible
ways, to higher rates of new residential
construction in Washington County.
Increasing demand for retirement/
second homes, however, was not the
only factor contributing to accelerating
new home construction in the 1990s.
The Washington County economy was
also undergoing rapid growth and
beginning to diversify. Consequently,
the demand for primary residences was
also expanding, creating additional
demand for housing units. These two
growing sources of demand pushed the
average annual level of residential
construction to 1,900 units between
1993 and 2002.
In 2003 another sharp and abrupt
increase in residential construction
occurred, as 2,600 residential permits
were issued. In the four-year stretch
from 2003 through 2006 nearly 12,600 residential building permits were issued, and in 2004 and
2005 new residential activity approached 4,000 units annually. This exceptionally high level of
residential construction proved unsustainable, and in 2007 residential permit activity fell back
under 2,000 units.
The recent housing boom (2003–06) in Washington County included higher levels of demand
created by economic growth and prosperity, expanding retirement/second home markets, a
growing primary residential market, plus an additional element, speculation, a feature not present
in the mid-1990s boom. There is little doubt that during the peak years of activity (2004–05)
120
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
demand was artificially high due to speculation in the market. Speculators who had made money
in Las Vegas and other Southwest markets moved their speculative housing bets to Washington
County. Unfortunately, there are no data on the number of speculators in the market, but their
presence was significant. A review of demand factors indicates that speculation may have
artificially increased demand for housing units by as much as 15 percent during the 2003–06
period.
For the last several years condominiums have been an important housing market segment in
Washington County. Nearly 20 percent of all units receiving building permits have been condos.
The peak year for condominium activity was 2005, with 680 units receiving building permits. In
contrast, the number of apartment units receiving building permits has decreased in recent years
as land and building costs have increased. Consequently, market conditions have become very
tight, with low vacancy rates and rising rental rates.
Since 1990 the Washington County housing cycle has mirrored the direction, peaks, and troughs
of the statewide cycle; however, Washington’s cycle has exhibited greater volatility. Like the
state, residential construction in Washington County will likely be flat through 2009 then begin
to accelerate, more rapidly than the state, in 2010 with a new peak a few years later.
For the last four years the value of nonresidential construction in Washington County has
exceeded $100 million annually. This marks 2004–07 as the period of greatest commercial
development in the history of Washington County (Table 4.26 and Figure 4.12). A record high
was established in 2006 with $184.2 million of nonresidential construction. This was not due to a
single, large mega-project but rather was the sum of a large number of medium-size projects
across several nonresidential sectors. The hotel sector included a new $5.4 million LaQuinta
Motel in St. George, and the office sector included the $4.5 million IMC offices, the $2.6 million
Worker’s Compensation Fund Office, and $4.0 million in medical offices. The value of new
office construction totaled $27.4 million, an all-time record. The industrial sector also had a
record year in 2006 with $44.2 million in new construction, including new facilities for Sunrock,
Intermountain Wood Products, Senston Development, and ARCO Design.
The single largest nonresidential project in Washington County’s history is the IHC Dixie
Medical Center, which received a permit in 2002 valued at $79.4 million. Other notable years by
type of nonresidential construction are 1985, with $47.4 million in public buildings, including
four elementary schools, the Dixie Civic Center, a new post office, and a recreation center; 1995,
with $57.2 million in retail comprising a number of small retail buildings; 2000, with $37.4
million in retail including a new Costco, Lowes, Home Depot, and Wal-Mart; and 1984, 1995,
and 2005 for hotel/motel construction, with approximately $16 million in each of the three
years. The hotel/motel sector is characterized by a burst of new construction activity about
every 10 years.
The building permit value of nonresidential construction in Washington County since 1975
totals $2.1 billion in constant 2007 dollars (Table 4.27). The sector with the highest value was
retail with $447.3 million, 21.5 percent of total nonresidential construction. Office buildings
totaled nearly $300 million and industrial buildings over $247 million.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
121
Table 4.26
Value of Nonresidential Construction by Type in Washington County, 1975–2007
Hotels
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
Churches
Industrial
Hospitals
Office
Retail
Public
Other
Total
$0.0
$0.0
$842.7
$0.0
$829.0
$4,217.9 $16,091.7
$1,284.2
$23,265.6
$1,048.3
$553.5
$2,549.4
$2,515.8
$2,993.9
$4,717.2
$255.8
$1,022.7
$15,656.5
$567.4
$4,593.7
$463.6
$0.0
$344.5
$2,335.9
$287.7
$1,249.0
$9,841.8
$3,226.2 $11,445.9
$1,184.7
$0.0
$1,846.6
$5,006.5
$5,043.8
$6,876.7
$34,630.5
$0.0
$4,927.1
$3,498.2
$0.0
$2,754.5
$3,450.0
$9,914.4
$614.2
$25,158.3
$366.1
$1,749.8
$1,566.8
$0.0
$3,074.6
$2,371.9 $13,935.8
$1,847.0
$24,912.0
$0.0
$1,080.6
$1,333.8
$0.0
$3,891.7
$1,907.9
$1,853.0
$3,128.8
$13,195.8
$0.0
$0.0
$221.5
$2,866.8
$41.7
$516.0 $20,068.7
$2,041.1
$25,755.8
$4,279.6
$6,941.9
$0.0
$0.0
$7,095.5
$7,669.3
$5,142.2
$915.6
$32,044.1
$17,157.6
$1,851.4
$400.0
$809.4
$4,046.8
$5,733.7
$2,764.3 $10,267.1
$43,030.2
$11,273.7
$2,491.2
$1,449.4
$0.0
$4,882.0
$9,033.9 $47,415.0 $17,675.8
$94,221.1
$0.0 $10,162.9
$913.2
$1,632.2
$3,640.6
$5,112.9 $18,971.5
$2,451.9
$42,885.1
$1,280.1
$5,091.8
$3,136.2
$153.6
$8,086.0 $10,494.7
$160.0
$2,350.5
$30,752.9
$0.0
$558.6
$3,514.6
$0.0
$5,381.3 $10,694.4
$3,710.8
$2,677.7
$26,537.4
$5,969.6
$2,117.5
$3,644.7
$53.7
$522.9 $17,467.1
$614.2
$2,225.5
$32,615.1
$3,397.2
$8,387.8
$305.4
$0.0
$1,508.7
$7,870.6
$3,416.8
$1,492.7
$26,379.2
$2,034.3
$4,615.0
$859.1
$718.4
$527.5
$9,933.9 $10,266.1
$3,036.0
$31,990.3
$263.5
$865.8
$545.7
$0.0
$16,479.4
$6,885.2
$432.9
$3,299.3
$28,771.8
$2,531.2 $11,775.1 $40,109.5
$478.7
$1,689.9
$7,131.4
$8,330.1
$7,939.2
$79,985.2
$8,393.3
$5,439.4
$2,258.7
$2,112.1
$8,198.6 $19,199.0
$89.3
$9,368.3
$55,058.8
$17,301.5
$8,494.6
$4,916.4
$0.0
$20,984.3 $57,205.7
$4,655.2 $12,040.0
$125,597.7
$5,170.2
$4,746.4
$9,822.2
$1,667.2
$18,935.9 $19,805.2
$6,829.0 $17,290.2
$84,266.3
$3,625.2
$3,062.1
$8,538.4
$6,314.6
$28,305.3 $11,883.8 $21,682.4 $52,230.2
$135,642.0
$1,542.8
$5,478.5
$1,727.2
$6,479.8
$5,178.9 $10,243.3
$2,970.7 $10,873.1
$44,494.2
$0.0
$6,688.9
$6,329.3
$5,022.6
$8,819.4 $11,933.2
$110.7 $14,065.3
$52,969.3
$1,565.9 $11,710.9
$2,267.5
$3,558.8
$16,403.8 $37,413.5
$4,344.9 $18,139.0
$95,404.4
$89.8 $12,292.7
$2,296.4
$393.8
$4,595.5 $19,203.1
$911.9 $11,521.7
$51,305.0
$0.0
$658.2 $27,411.9 $79,363.5
$19,104.7
$8,396.9
$95.8 $11,683.1
$146,714.1
$0.0
$3,640.9
$4,136.4
$7,829.0
$12,812.8
$7,580.0
$1,790.4 $18,102.9
$55,892.3
$2,193.1
$3,037.3 $14,779.1
$0.0
$20,897.8 $14,482.7 $34,084.1 $44,055.6
$133,529.6
$16,343.4 $10,455.9 $17,926.9
$0.0
$20,288.4 $36,212.7
$8,032.9 $25,816.6
$135,076.9
$11,894.3
$7,041.4 $44,162.2
$6,730.1
$27,364.6 $39,528.0 $17,316.0 $30,213.2
$184,249.8
$2,968.0 $10,172.2 $34,198.9
$4,891.3
$18,364.3 $31,669.3
$7,812.0 $28,457.2
$138,533.2
$124,482.5 $172,129.0 $247,309.9 $133,591.3 $299,891.1 $447,306.8 $279,400.0 $376,251.4 $2,080,362.1
122
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Figure 4.12
Value of Nonresidential Construction in Washington County,
1975–2007
$200.0
$180.0
$160.0
$140.0
$120.0
$100.0
$80.0
$60.0
$40.0
$20.0
07
05
20
20
03
20
01
99
20
19
97
19
93
95
19
91
19
19
87
89
19
85
19
19
83
19
81
79
19
19
77
19
19
75
$0.0
Table 4.27
by Type in Washington County, 1975–2007
Total Value
$447,306.8
Other
$376,251.4
$299,891.1
$279,400.0
$247,309.9
$172,129.0
$133,591.3
Hotels & Motels
$124,482.5
Total
$2,080,362.1
Share
21.5%
18.1%
14.4%
13.4%
11.9%
8.3%
6.4%
6.0%
100%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
123
5
Higher Education
One of the factors driving the current study was a desire to better understand the role of higher
education in economic development, that is, how Southern Utah University and Dixie State
College contribute to the region’s economic growth. In a review of recent research on the
regional economic impacts of universities,18 Joshua Drucker and Harvey Goldstein list eight
outputs of research universities that may influence economic development: creation of
knowledge, human-capital creation, transfer of existing know-how, technological innovation,
capital investment, regional leadership, knowledge infrastructure production, and influence on
the regional milieu. Since neither Southern Utah University nor Dixie State College are research
universities, their effects on the regional economy are likely to be confined to human capital
creation, capital investment, regional leadership, and influence on the regional milieu.
Dixie supports Washington County growth by training workers in the health professions (300 of
319 certificates, 87 of 864 associate’s degrees, and 11 of 134 bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2007
were in health professions or nursing) and in business and marketing (11 certificates, 80
associate’s degrees, and 55 bachelor’s degrees) (Tables 5.1a and 5.1b). However, the college’s
most popular associate’s degree by far is in general studies (684 of 864 in 2007); presumably,
many of these students plan to pursue a bachelor’s degree elsewhere. Dixie currently offers
bachelor’s degrees in Accounting, Biology, Business Administration, Computer & Information
Technology, Communication, Criminal Justice (in cooperation with SUU), Elementary
Education, English, and Nursing. The college has also been one of the county’s major employers
since at least 1970, and as of fall 2007 employed 550 full-time equivalents (FTE).
SUU is training future teachers and businesspeople. Of the 868 bachelor’s degrees awarded in
2007, 185 were in education and 135 were in business and marketing (Table 5.2). Health
professions, biological/life sciences, communications, and psychology were also popular,
ranging from 50 to 86 degrees awarded. The most popular of its eight master’s degrees19 is that
in education, representing 142 of the 204 degrees awarded in 2007. SUU also awarded 168
associate’s degrees in 2007, most of which (148) were in general studies. As of fall 2007, SUU
employed 1,149 FTEs.
The Utah Shakespearean Festival, affiliated with SUU, was originally established to capitalize on
the large number of summer visitors to the nearby national parks. It has since evolved into a
tourism draw in its own right, with a season running from June through October. The Festival’s
web site notes: “The Festival has grown from a budget of under $1,000 in 1961 to over $6
million today…. In 2002 alone, direct and indirect expenditures by the Festival and its patrons
were estimated at nearly $64 million. In the first year of operation, the Festival attracted 3,276
visitors.”20 In 2006, over 124,000 attended.
Drucker, Joshua, and Harvey Goldstein. “Assessing the Regional Economic Development Impacts of
Universities: A Review of Current Approaches.” International Regional Science Review, vol. 30, no. 1 (January 2007):
20–46.
19 According to the university’s web site, SUU offers master’s degrees in accountancy, arts administration, business
administration, education, forensic science, professional communication, public administration, and sports
conditioning and performance.
20 http://www.bard.org/about/quickfacts.html; accessed August 28, 2007.
18
124
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Business & Marketing
Communications
Engineering & Related Technologies
Health Professions
Home Economics
Other Vocational Studies†
Total Certificates Awarded
2006–07
2005–06
2004–05
2003–04
2002–03
2001–02
2000–01
1999–00
1998–99
1997–98
1996–97
1995–96
1994–95
1993–94
1992–93
Certificates & Diplomas Less than One Year
83
81
13
28
15
1
12
3
52
3
54 166
0 140 250
Certificates &
86
Communications
Computer & Info Sciences
3
Health Professions
Home Economics
1
98
Visual & Performing Arts
188
Agriculture & Natural Resources
Architecture & Related Studies
Biological Sciences/Life Sciences
Communications
Education
English Language & Literature
Foreign Languages
Health Professions
Home Economics
Law & Legal Studies
Liberal Arts & Sciences/Gen. Studies
Mathematics
Other*
Philosophy
Physical Sciences & Science Tech.
Psychology
Social Sciences & Public Admin.
Total Associate’s Degrees Awarded
1991–92
Field of Study
1990–91
1989–90
Table 5.1a
Dixie State College Degrees Awarded by Type and Field of Study, 1990–2007
2
3
12
101
5
42 142 133
55 170 148
101 150
102 150
154
166
4
4
38
61
34
2
79
3
7
20
86
9
8
54
11
5
3
22
1
1
28
1
7
1
21
68
98
21
1
98
35
40
3
3
75 104
Associate’s Degrees
2
6
5
8
3
20
3
2
1
6
14
17
13
10
5
9
14
13
15
13
13
17
428 455 507 492
51
44
1
4
2
18
19
4
15
16
18
497 545
4
1
59
17
1
58
2
12
21 200
60
20
20
65
14
4
65
84 119 246 104
68
1
5
25
4
3
53
55
84
86
83
95
130 151 114 134
13
16
14
21
17
31
40
37
86
76
72
75
12
11
10
8
14
8
11
9
2
1
3
2
12
23
31
3
3
6
8
1
4
1
7
216 230 242 257
9
4
5
7
1
35
29
29
38
2
6
24
21
10
17
21
26
601 601
5
29
15
23
715
6
4
4
6
20
20
20
15
18
12
16
14
30
31
29
32
697 735 724 801
59
13
32
195
7
58
9
8
5
35
177 142
6
6
26
3
16
7
11
8
72 74 29 16
388 592 237 263 216
5
149 142 187 149 171 173
8
2
3
6
6
4
59
28
96
7
7
47
10
9
5
79
144
8
21
82
17
4
5
5
10
44
19
93
8
3
52
9
11
1
14
4
3
22
28
117 120
11
8
9
6
61
86
9
15
4
4
2
2
52
50
10
3
28
71
55
71 107
Diplomas Greater than One Year but Less than Four Years
23
35
12
27
76
37
32
20
29
25
16
23
30
36
96 105
9
8
5
2
44
66
7
7
7
4
1
1
24
31
1
4
41
19
7
1
13
2
115 109
115 109
4
1
2
17 23 16 13
295 494 190 234
1
12
14
5
16
94
75 101 141 103
2
3
83 53 52
2
160 132 163 113 80
10 19 23
3
47 27 27
2
73 66 75 16
21 18 19
8 10
8
6
6
2
5
7
1
49 94 164 61 87
13 14 11
1
1
4
3
2
293 274 235 569 684
3
3
4
1
1
9 15 16 10
3
3
4
3
1
18 28 12
6
11 15 15
1
37 30 13
6
845 811 846 804 864
Note: Data on certificates by field of study in 2006–07 were not broken out by length of certificate.
† Includes Personal Services, Vocational Home Economics, Protective Services, Construction Trades, Mechanics & Repairers, Precision Production Trades, and
Transportation & Materials Moving.
* Includes Library Science, Military Technologies, Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies, and Parks & Recreation.
Source: Utah System of Higher Education data books and National Center for Education Statistics IPEDS Completion Survey.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
125
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
Field of Study
Communications
Education
Health Professions
Total Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded
2000–01
Table 5.1b
Dixie State College Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded by
Field of Study, 2001–07
1
24
42
51
36
54
13
21
26
25
24
34
21
29
55
1
19
48
37
63 102
1
14
11
94 118 134
Source: Utah System of Higher Education data books and National Center for Education
Statistics IPEDS Completion Survey.
Exhibit 5.1
Total Degrees Awarded by Dixie State College by Type, 1982–2007
1,600
Associate's Degrees
Total C ertificates
Bachelor's Degrees
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
19
81
1 9 -8 2
82
1 9 -83
83
19 -84
84
19 -85
85
1 9 -8 6
86
1 9 -8 7
87
1 9 -8 8
88
19 -89
89
19 -90
90
19 -91
91
19 -92
92
19 -93
93
19 -94
94
19 -95
95
19 -96
96
19 -97
97
19 -98
98
19 -99
99
20 -00
00
2 0 -0 1
01
2 0 -0 2
02
20 -03
03
20 -04
04
20 -05
05
2 0 -0 6
06
-0
7
0
2006–07
2005–06
2004–05
2003–04
2002–03
2001–02
2000–01
1999–00
1998–99
1997–98
1996–97
1995–96
1994–95
1993–94
1992–93
1991–92
1990–91
1982–83
Type of Degree
1981–82
Academic Year
Change
Certificates <1 year
0 140 250 55 170 148 102 150 166 115 109
71
107
388
592
237
263
216
54.3%*
Certificates >1 year
170 61 79 21 98 98 75 104 65 84 119
246
104
68
75
101
141
103
–39.4%
Total Certificates
170 201 329 76 268 246 177 254 231 199 228
317
211
456
667
338
404
319
87.6%
258 327 455 507 492 497 545 601 601 715 697 735
724
801
845
811
846
804
864
234.9%
Bachelor’s Degrees
1
37
63
102
94
118
134 13300.0%
Total Degrees Awarded 258 497 656 836 568 765 791 778 855 946 896 963 1,042 1,049 1,364 1,580 1,278 1,326 1,317
410.5%
*This is the change from 1990–91 to 2006–07; there were also 302 certificates (less than one year) awarded in 1983–84 and 40 in 1986–87.
126
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
1999–00
2000–01
6
4
4
8
7
2
4
19
14
11
1
3
3
3
7
16
9
7
14
4
3
8
18
5
10
3
2
3
6
6
6
2
2
1
9
7
47
11
8
45
8
3
33
15
16
9
12
15
11
6
5
12
6
16
21
21
18
14
35
31
17
7
6
6
4
1
3
6
12
26
13
19
17
7
14
1
3
1
14
1
2
10
2
6
5
5
22
9
4
8
2
5
3
1
6
9
1
5
7
3
20
10
2006–07
1998–99
Certificates
5
2
4
5
2
2
2005–06
1997–98
5
15
2004–05
1996–97
5
4
2003–04
1995–96
3
13
2002–03
1993–94
2
5
2001–02
1992–93
1994–95
1991–92
1990–91
Field of Study
1989–90
Table 5.2
Southern Utah University Degrees Awarded by Type and Field of Study, 1990–2007
5
Note: certificates and diplomas greater than one year but less than four years.
Home Economics
Law & Legal Studies
Liberal Arts & Sciences/Gen. Studies
Total Associate’s Degrees Awarded
Architecture & Related Studies
Communications
Education
Foreign Languages
French (Canadian) Language & Lit.
Health Professions
History
Home Economics
Mathematics
Other*
Physical Sciences & Science Tech.
Psychology
Total Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded
Communications
Education
Total Master’s Degrees Awarded
23
5
13
1
14
8
7
54
34
51
39
47
43
24
45
49
44
43
44
77
52
66
57
77
57
54
75
84
55
88
63
30
17
62
6
6
3
10
6
10
17
12
7
6
3
4
19
23
26
21
24
96 113 102 101 104
32
30
41
37
35
199 219 259 226 267
14
11
15
14
11
8
9
10
9
12
8
9
9
8
12
11
14
5
7
4
4
6
4
5
9
7
5
6
5
6
28
43
33
27
20
24
47
38
16
20
21
17
470 527 585 531
16
16
21
21
22
22
7
15
8
1
9
54
37
22
624
24
1
1
5
4
2
1
1
4
70 148
10
8
3
1
94 168
11
26
35
16
23
26
38
31
25
71 126 119
84
95
73
48
44
95 161 135 107 121 111
79
32
50
52
57
1
49
46 126 142
7
4
4
88 100 178 204
† Includes Personal Services, Vocational Home Economics, Protective Services, Construction Trades, Mechanics & Repairers, Precision Production Trades,
Transportation & Materials Moving.
* Includes Library Science, Military Technologies, Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies, and Parks & Recreation.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
11
31
36
56
60
51
44
39
45
38
35
53
63
75
89 114 121 165 140 140 134 128 133 119 120 141 135
35
40
44
43
61
57
86
71
84
81
77
55
53
8
26
35
32
52
42
38
21
22
10
276 285 270 299 291 305 300 239 305 232 227 203 185
10
9
12
15
8
14
15
12
9
15
15
19
16
12
13
15
18
21
5
12
28
10
7
15
11
11
13
16
14
20
21
13
17
14
10
9
16
13
14
8
15
1
4
14
52
86
11
17
11
9
4
15
16
14
23
23
28
27
26
31
26
37
13
17
10
6
9
3
1
7
3
6
2
2
6
1
5
3
1
9
7
5
15
6
15
13
18
12
5
15
19
24
40
30
44
44
56
64
45
66
59
11
15
12
23
5
17
7
15
6
6
18
16
16
42
45
53
39
33
46
57
53
35
49
55
72
50
44
33
56
67
64
56
63
61
46
43
57
56
39
26
14
28
32
32
32
29
44
39
39
55
36
42
620 671 734 846 842 839 871 862 873 819 854 899 868
Master’s Degrees
15
24
26
19
24
15
1
7
5
7
BUSINESS RESEARCH
127
Exhibit 5.2
Total Degrees Awarded by Southern Utah University by Type, 1982–2007
1,250
Bachelor's Degrees
Master's Degrees
Associate's Degrees
C ertificates
1,000
750
500
250
19
81
19 -82
82
1 9 -8 3
83
19 -84
84
19 -85
85
19 -86
86
19 -87
87
19 -88
88
19 -89
89
19 -90
90
19 -91
91
19 -92
92
19 -93
93
19 -94
94
19 -95
95
19 -96
96
19 -97
97
19 -98
98
19 -99
99
20 -00
00
20 -01
01
20 -02
02
20 -03
03
20 -04
04
20 -05
05
20 -06
06
-0
7
0
1997–98
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
77 16
9 20 10 16 21 21
0 34 52 66 57 77 57 54 75
301 300 527 585 531 624 620 671 734
0
0 21 22 15 24 26 44 95
18
84
846
161
14
55
842
135
35
88
839
107
31
63
871
121
17
62
862
111
7
47
873
79
6
45
819
88
14
33
854
100
18
94
899
178
Total Degrees Awarded 301 411 616 682 623 735 719 790 925 1,109 1,046 1,069 1,086 1,052 1,006
*Master’s degrees grew from two awarded in 1985–86.
2006–07
1996–97
1995–96
1994–95
1993–94
1992–93
1991–92
1990–91
1982–83
Type of Degree
Certificates
Master’s Degrees
1981–82
Academic Year
958 1,001 1,189 1,250
Degrees Awarded
Since the 1981–82 academic year, the total number of certificates and degrees awarded at Dixie
has increased 410 percent, from 258 to 1,317 (Exhibit 5.1). SUU has experienced similar growth,
from 301 total certificates and degrees in 1982 to 1,250 in 2007, a 315 percent increase (Exhibit
5.2). Dixie’s relatively new bachelor’s degree program has grown from one degree awarded in
2001, in business, to 134 degrees awarded in 2007. SUU has seen its greatest growth in master’s
degrees, which have increased a hundredfold from two awarded in 1986 to 204 in 2007 in
business, communications, education, and arts administration. In 2007, Dixie awarded about as
many associate’s degrees as SUU awarded bachelor’s degrees, 864 vs. 868, with each representing
roughly two-thirds of each school’s total.
128
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
Change
10
–87.0%
168
394.1%
868
188.4%
204 10100.0%*
BUSINESS RESEARCH
315.3%
Exhibit 5.3
Enrollment at Southern Utah University and Dixie State College, 1982–2007
(budget-related and self-support)
8,000
7,000
Dixie State C ollege
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Source: Utah System of Higher Education data books.
6
05
-0
Academic Year
20
03
-0
20
01
-0
4
2
0
-0
20
99
19
97
19
95
-9
-9
8
6
4
-9
19
93
19
91
19
19
89
-9
-9
2
0
8
-8
6
87
-8
19
85
-8
19
83
19
81
-8
2
4
0
19
Annualized FTE Enrollment
6,000
Academic
Year
1981–82
1982–83
1983–84
1984–85
1985–86
1986–87
1987–88
1988–89
1989–90
1990–91
1991–92
1992–93
1993–94
1994–95
1995–96
1996–97
1997–98
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07p
Change
AAGR
Annualized FTE
SUU
Dixie
1,921
1,380
2,173
1,436
2,315
1,449
2,410
1,483
2,361
1,646
2,685
1,843
2,779
1,812
2,894
1,802
3,034
1,992
3,439
2,156
3,754
2,298
3,938
2,299
4,352
2,438
4,583
2,638
4,807
2,964
5,153
3,171
5,646
3,389
5,731
3,607
5,896
3,728
5,978
3,990
6,134
4,212
5,911
4,389
5,759
4,583
6,202
4,542
6,300
4,372
6,937
4,202
261.1% 204.5%
5.3%
4.6%
Enrollment
Enrollment has more than tripled at both SUU and Dixie over the last 25 years (Exhibit 5.3).
SUU grew from 1,921 annualized full-time equivalents (budget-related and self-support) in the
1981–82 academic year to 6,937 in 2006–07, with a slight dip in 1985–86 and a larger decline
from 2001–02 to 2003–04. This represents an average annual growth rate of 5.3 percent. Dixie’s
enrollment grew from 1,380 to 4,202 annualized FTEs over the period, with some stagnation
from 1986–87 to 1988–89 and from 1991–92 to 1992–93. This represents an average annual
growth rate of 4.6 percent. Enrollment at Dixie peaked at 4,583 in 2003–04. Beginning in
2003–04, FTE counts at Dixie dropped and declined each year through 2006–07. These declines
were the result of several changes initiated by Dixie in 2003–04, and included (1) eliminating the
summer workshop student count from the fall enrollment count, (2) transferring certain
certificate programs off campus to the Dixie Applied Technology College, and (3) a change in
scholarship policy requiring 12 credit hours per term instead of 15.
Enrollment numbers provided for spring 2008 show increases in both headcount and FTE21 at
Dixie and SUU over spring 2007. SUU’s headcount increased by 327, for a total of 5,898. The
21 Headcount is the number of all students enrolled in coursework at the time enrollment is measured. FTE (fulltime equivalent) is a calculated number based on the total number of credit hours students are enrolled in at a given
time divided by the number of credit hours required for full-time status (15 per semester for undergraduates, 10 for
graduate students).
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
129
FTE count increased 309, for a total of 5,137. Dixie’s headcount increased by 96, for a total of
4,908, and its FTE count increased by 112, for a total of 3,562.
Enrollment growth at the two institutions is projected to slow from its past pace (Table 5.3). In
fact, both schools are expected to increase enrollment by little more than one-third by the
2020–21 academic year, representing average annual growth rates of just over 2 percent. In
contrast, over the 14-year period of 1981–82 to 1995–96, enrollments more than doubled at
both schools, with AAGRs of 6.8 percent at SUU and 5.6 percent at Dixie; and they grew by
more than three-quarters from 1992–93 to 2006–07, with AAGRs of just over 4 percent.
Table 5.3
Projected Annualized FTE
(budget-related and self-support)
Institution
SUU
Share of Total
Dixie
Share of Total
USHE
2010–11 2015–16 2020–21
6,920
5.7%
4,520
3.7%
121,673
7,800
5.8%
4,850
3.6%
135,402
9,460
5.8%
5,640
3.5%
162,188
Source: Utah System of Higher Education 2007 Data Book.
130
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
6Personal Income
BEBR obtained historical data on personal income for the five southwestern counties from the
Bureau of Economic Analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce. The series includes the
components of personal income, which are given by place of residence, and the components of
earnings, which are by place of work. BEBR aggregated the county data to derive figures for the
region.
Personal income comprises net earnings by place of residence; dividends, interest, and rent; and
personal current transfer receipts received by the residents of the area under consideration. Net
earnings by place of residence equal earnings by place of work less contributions for government
social insurance plus a residence adjustment. The residence adjustment is the net inflow of the
earnings of interarea commuters. That is, a negative number indicates more earnings are leaving
the area with in-commuters from outside than earnings are coming into the area with outcommuters coming home. Dividends, interest, and rent account for what is often referred to as
investment income. Personal current transfer receipts are defined as “payments to persons for
which no current services are performed.” They generally include retirement and disability
insurance benefits, medical payments (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid), income maintenance
benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, veterans benefits, and federal government grants
and loans to students.
The following discussion and accompanying tables refer to inflation-adjusted, constant (2005)
dollar amounts.
Southwest Region
From 1970 to 2005, total personal income in the southwest region increased 649.2 percent, from
$525.9 million to $3.9 billion (Table 6.1). Per capita personal income grew 52.9 percent over the
same period, from $14,764 to $22,568. Farm income in the region grew 213.7 percent, although
its share of total personal income declined from 6.2 percent in 1970 to 2.6 percent in 2005. Net
earnings made up 63.8 percent of total personal income in 2005, down from 73.5 percent in
1970. Dividends, interest, and rent—investment income—accounted for 17.8 percent, up
slightly from 15.5 percent; and personal current transfer receipts increased from 11.0 percent of
personal income in 1970 to 18.5 percent in 2005. Total personal income grew at an average
annual rate of 5.9 percent over the period; net earnings increased at a 5.5 percent annual rate,
investment income at a 6.3 percent annual rate, and personal current transfer receipts grew on
average 7.5 percent annually. The adjustment for residence was consistently positive over the
period, indicating that more earnings were brought into the region by region residents who
worked outside the region than were earnings taken out of the region by extraregional workers
commuting in.
Beaver County
Beaver County experienced the second slowest growth in total personal income of the five
southwest counties, increasing 211.8 percent from $56.4 million in 1970 to $175.9 million in
2005 (Table 6.2). This represents an average annual rate of 3.3 percent; only Garfield County
grew slower at 2.5 percent. However, Beaver had the fastest per capita income growth,
increasing 90.9 percent over the period (an average annual rate of 1.9 percent) from $14,855 to
$28,362. It also has the highest per capita income in the region. Beaver County not only has the
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
131
Table 6.1
Components of Personal Income in the Southwest Region, 1970–2005
1970
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Change
Income by Place of Residence
Personal income
Nonfarm personal income
Farm income
Per capita personal income (dollars)
Derivation of Personal Income
Earnings by place of work
less: Contributions for government social insurance
Employee and self-employed contributions for gov’t social insurance
Employer contributions for government social insurance
plus: Adjustment for residence
equals: Net earnings by place of residence
plus: Dividends, interest, and rent
plus: Personal current transfer receipts
Earnings by Place of Work
Components of Earnings
Wage and salary disbursements
Supplements to wages and salaries
Employer contributions for employee pension and insurance funds
Proprietors’ income
Farm proprietors’ income
Nonfarm proprietors’ income
Earnings by Industry
Farm earnings
Nonfarm earnings
$525.9 $938.8 $1,578.0 $3,021.0 $3,168.6 $3,226.5 $3,328.1 $3,688.3 $3,940.0
$493.5 $925.0 $1,544.4 $2,967.3 $3,092.2 $3,160.4 $3,254.5 $3,585.3 $3,838.4
$32.4
$13.8
$33.6
$53.7
$76.4
$66.1
$73.6
$103.0
$101.6
$14,764 $16,749 $18,784 $21,265 $21,725 $21,270 $21,218 $22,550 $22,578
$403.4
$24.9
$13.2
$11.7
$8.0
$386.5
$81.6
$57.8
$624.5 $1,018.2 $1,953.2 $2,060.2 $2,156.9 $2,256.8 $2,511.0 $2,773.4 587.5%
$55.0
$112.6
$217.4
$225.0
$239.1
$254.6
$281.8
$318.3 1177.1%
$27.3
$59.8
$112.9
$117.1
$123.5
$130.0
$141.3
$157.9 1096.0%
$27.7
$52.8
$104.5
$108.0
$115.6
$124.6
$140.5
$160.4 1268.6%
$17.8
$28.8
$53.0
$52.7
$53.0
$53.7
$57.2
$56.9 612.9%
$587.3
$934.4 $1,788.8 $1,887.9 $1,970.8 $2,055.9 $2,286.4 $2,512.0 550.0%
$221.3
$378.1
$704.4
$719.0
$653.6
$636.1
$722.5
$700.3 757.7%
$130.2
$265.5
$527.8
$561.7
$602.1
$636.1
$679.4
$727.7 1159.7%
$263.7
$26.4
$14.7
$11.7
$113.3
$23.9
$89.5
$426.5
$78.2
$50.5
$27.7
$119.8
$3.9
$115.9
$663.4 $1,409.6 $1,446.5 $1,516.7 $1,577.2 $1,717.9 $1,910.0 624.3%
$143.7
$298.6
$310.7
$340.7
$375.7
$424.9
$480.3 1721.3%
$90.9
$194.1
$202.8
$225.1
$251.1
$284.4
$319.9 2083.5%
$52.8
$104.5
$108.0
$115.6
$124.6
$140.5
$160.4 1268.6%
$211.1
$245.1
$303.0
$299.4
$303.9
$368.2
$383.1 238.0%
$26.1
$35.6
$58.7
$45.5
$55.7
$83.6
$77.6 225.2%
$185.0
$209.4
$244.3
$253.9
$248.3
$284.6
$305.5 241.5%
$32.7
$370.7
$14.2
$610.2
$34.2
$55.2
$77.8
$67.4
$75.0
$104.3
$103.0
$984.0 $1,898.0 $1,982.4 $2,089.5 $2,181.8 $2,406.7 $2,670.4
Note: Earnings by place of work equals the sum of wage and salary disbursements, supplements to wages and salaries, and proprietors’ income.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
132
649.2%
677.8%
213.7%
52.9%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
214.9%
620.4%
Table 6.2
Components of Personal Income in Beaver County, 1970–2005
1970
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Change
Personal income
Farm income
Farm earnings
Nonfarm earnings
$56,421 $72,628 $89,683 $145,382 $159,394 $143,678 $145,882 $172,546 $175,903
$50,095 $71,048 $79,503 $103,555 $105,583 $105,210 $105,953 $109,896 $112,369
$6,326
$1,581 $10,181 $41,827 $53,812 $38,467 $39,930 $62,650 $63,534
$14,855 $16,476 $18,806 $24,158 $26,451 $23,554 $24,038 $28,351 $28,362
$44,961
$3,572
$1,677
$1,895
–$505
$40,884
$7,524
$8,013
$49,486
$5,167
$2,096
$3,071
–$17
$44,302
$14,785
$13,541
$63,002 $108,998 $119,393 $105,619 $109,580 $136,456 $140,089 211.6%
$8,432
$9,862
$9,356
$9,492
$9,697 $10,292 $10,729 200.4%
$3,579
$4,311
$4,219
$4,320
$4,437
$4,717
$4,951 195.3%
$4,854
$5,551
$5,136
$5,171
$5,260
$5,575
$5,778 204.9%
–$2,748
–$556
$1,326
$1,489
$1,355
$1,587
$1,466 –390.3%
$51,821 $98,580 $111,363 $97,617 $101,238 $127,750 $130,826 220.0%
$18,747 $22,438 $23,338 $19,517 $17,549 $17,923 $17,395 131.2%
$19,116 $24,365 $24,693 $26,543 $27,096 $26,873 $27,682 245.5%
$30,101 $34,904 $36,722
$3,509
$6,877 $10,220
$1,614
$3,806
$5,367
$1,895
$3,071
$4,854
$11,351
$7,705 $16,060
$4,884
–$900
$7,994
$6,467
$8,605
$8,066
$55,141
$14,369
$8,819
$5,551
$39,488
$33,822
$5,665
$53,457
$13,845
$8,709
$5,136
$52,091
$46,020
$6,070
$56,295
$14,436
$9,264
$5,171
$34,889
$29,491
$5,397
$56,302
$15,531
$10,271
$5,260
$37,747
$32,121
$5,625
$58,930
$16,703
$11,128
$5,575
$60,822
$54,236
$6,586
$62,078
$17,744
$11,966
$5,778
$60,267
$53,143
$7,124
106.2%
405.6%
641.3%
204.9%
430.9%
988.1%
10.2%
$6,378
$1,698 $10,349
$38,582 $47,789 $52,653
$42,457
$66,540
$54,424
$64,969
$39,019
$66,601
$40,538
$69,041
$63,240
$73,216
$64,116
$75,973
905.2%
96.9%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
211.8%
124.3%
904.3%
90.9%
133
largest share in the region of personal income derived from farm income, it was also the only
county in which farm income’s share of total income increased over the period—from 11.2
percent to 36.1 percent. Farm income grew at an average annual rate of 6.8 percent over the
period, for a total increase of 904.3 percent. Net earnings represented 74.4 percent of total
personal income in 2005, up slightly from 72.5 percent in 1970. Investment income (dividends,
interest, and rent) declined as a share of total income from 13.3 percent to 9.9 percent, while
personal transfer receipts’ share grew slightly from 14.2 percent to 15.7 percent. Net earnings
grew 220.0 percent from 1970 to 2005, an average annual rate of 3.4 percent; investment income
increased 131.2 percent, or 2.4 percent annually; and personal current transfer receipts grew
245.5 percent, or 3.6 percent annually. The residence adjustment for Beaver County was negative
for the first half of the 1970s and from 1983 through 2000, then turned positive from 2001 to
2005, indicating fluctuations in the net flow of earnings into and out of the county. In the early
’70s and for most of the ’80s and ’90s, more earnings were leaving the county with non-county
residents who commuted to Beaver than were coming into the county with county residents
who worked elsewhere.
Garfield County
As noted above, Garfield County had the slowest personal income growth in the region,
increasing 140.7 percent over the period, from $43.4 million to $104.4 million (Table 6.3).
However, the county’s per capita income growth was the second fastest in the region, growing
1.6 percent annually from $13,720 to $23,506, a 71.3 percent increase. Farm income in Garfield
represented 6.0 percent of total personal income in 1970, but turned persistently negative in
1995 and by 2005 was –1.9 percent of total income. Overall, farm income declined 174.8 percent
over the period. Although net earnings grew at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent from 1970
to 2005, for a total gain of 116.1 percent, their share of total income declined from 73.6 percent
to 66.1 percent. They were replaced by personal current transfer receipts, which increased from
13.4 percent to 20.8 percent of total income, growing 3.8 percent annually (274.3 percent total).
Investment income grew 2.6 percent annually over the period, for a 142.6 percent increase, but
its share of total income remained at 13 percent. The residence adjustment for Garfield County
was consistently negative through 1995, then turned positive in 1996 and remained so through
2005. This indicates that, until 1996, more people were commuting into the county and taking
their earnings home to another county than were Garfield County residents commuting out of
the county and bringing earnings in.
Iron County
Total personal income growth in Iron County averaged 4.4 percent annually from 1970 to 2005,
increasing from $179.6 million to $799.1 million, or 345.0 percent (Table 6.4). Per capita
personal income grew at less than one-quarter the rate, 1.0 percent annually, from $14,584 to
$20,789. Iron County had not only the slowest per capita income growth, but also the lowest per
capita income in the region. Farm income increased an average of 3.8 percent annually over the
period, gaining 270.4 percent; Iron and Beaver are the only counties in the region in which farm
income grew. However, its share of total personal income fell slightly, from 6.4 percent in 1970
to 5.3 percent in 2005. Net earnings grew almost fourfold, from $136.8 million to $545.0 million,
an average annual increase of 4.0 percent. Their share of personal income declined from 76.2
percent to 68.2 percent. Investment income (dividends, interest, and rent) also saw its share of
income shrink, from 14.9 percent in 1970 to 13.5 percent in 2005, this despite a 301.1 percent
increase over the period. Filling the place of earnings and investment income, personal current
transfer receipts grew 821.0 percent over the period, a 6.5 percent average annual rate, more
134
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 6.3
Components of Personal Income in Garfield County, 1970–2005
1970
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Change
Personal income
Farm income
Farm earnings
Nonfarm earnings
$43,388 $76,165 $73,882 $99,013 $98,896
$40,806 $73,977 $70,588 $100,043 $99,108
$2,583 $2,187 $3,294 –$1,030
–$212
$13,720 $20,602 $18,624 $20,845 $21,082
$95,088
$99,249
–$4,161
$20,644
$95,709 $102,604 $104,439 140.7%
$98,251 $103,093 $106,372 160.7%
–$2,542
–$490 –$1,933 –174.8%
$21,105 $23,062 $23,506
71.3%
$35,396
$2,150
$1,099
$1,052
–$1,312
$31,933
$5,644
$5,811
$63,664
$7,550
$3,914
$3,636
$3,778
$59,892
$15,296
$19,900
$65,321
$7,671
$3,954
$3,718
$3,787
$61,436
$14,060
$20,213
$72,129
$8,327
$4,213
$4,114
$4,025
$67,827
$14,495
$20,282
$73,594 107.9%
$8,802 309.3%
$4,453 305.3%
$4,349 313.5%
$4,206 –420.6%
$68,998 116.1%
$13,692 142.6%
$21,749 274.3%
$25,477 $49,823 $36,222
$2,588 $9,871 $8,358
$1,536 $6,657 $5,628
$1,052 $3,214 $2,730
$7,331 $6,308 $7,991
$1,828 $1,220 $2,416
$5,504 $5,088 $5,575
$50,518 $48,530 $48,698 $48,316
$12,178 $12,208 $12,606 $13,036
$8,503 $8,628 $8,970 $9,319
$3,674 $3,581 $3,636 $3,718
$5,737 $5,951 $2,361 $3,969
–$1,821
–$980 –$5,043 –$3,309
$7,558 $6,931 $7,404 $7,278
$51,640
$14,436
$10,322
$4,114
$6,053
–$1,315
$7,368
$53,410 109.6%
$15,223 488.3%
$10,874 607.9%
$4,349 313.5%
$4,961 –32.3%
–$2,948 –261.3%
$7,909
43.7%
$2,614 $2,221 $3,359
$32,782 $63,782 $49,212
–$969
–$154 –$4,107 –$2,484
$69,402 $66,842 $67,771 $67,804
–$433
$72,561
–$1,877 –171.8%
$75,471 130.2%
$66,002
$5,986
$2,772
$3,214
–$6,817
$53,199
$14,346
$8,620
$52,572
$5,566
$2,836
$2,730
–$1,797
$45,209
$16,950
$11,724
$68,433
$7,697
$4,022
$3,674
$3,137
$63,873
$17,108
$18,032
$66,689
$7,440
$3,859
$3,581
$3,665
$62,914
$17,492
$18,490
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
135
Table 6.4
Components of Personal Income in Iron County, 1970–2005
1970
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Change
Personal income
Farm income
Farm earnings
Nonfarm earnings
$179,562 $288,735 $379,823 $633,441 $670,844 $699,579 $707,067 $755,450 $799,104
$168,107 $282,830 $363,066 $618,776 $646,253 $662,265 $667,695 $713,922 $756,673
$11,455
$5,905 $16,758 $14,665 $24,591 $37,314 $39,372 $41,528 $42,431
$14,584 $16,566 $18,151 $18,646 $19,406 $19,794 $19,824 $20,732 $20,789
$146,223 $213,112 $275,925 $453,320 $477,706
$8,951 $18,056 $29,165 $49,609 $50,834
$4,671
$8,933 $14,823 $24,988 $25,767
$4,280
$9,124 $14,342 $24,621 $25,067
–$437 –$1,886
$3,031
$8,708 $10,830
$136,835 $193,169 $249,791 $412,419 $437,702
$26,810 $59,281 $69,801 $114,778 $116,980
$15,917 $36,284 $60,231 $106,243 $116,162
$507,792
$52,883
$26,630
$26,253
$11,097
$466,005
$108,757
$124,816
$515,264
$53,993
$26,997
$26,996
$12,418
$473,689
$102,003
$131,375
$551,661
$58,113
$28,630
$29,483
$14,245
$507,793
$111,212
$136,445
$592,060
304.9%
$63,778
612.6%
$31,218
568.4%
$32,560
660.7%
$16,683 –3914.4%
$544,965
298.3%
$107,546
301.1%
$146,593
821.0%
$103,605 $152,716 $192,801 $342,495 $341,944 $352,805 $350,205 $371,558 $401,774
$10,601 $28,830 $43,351 $77,480 $78,698 $86,606 $93,132 $103,088 $112,059
$6,321 $19,706 $29,009 $52,859 $53,632 $60,353 $66,136 $73,605 $79,499
$4,280
$9,124 $14,342 $24,621 $25,067 $26,253 $26,996 $29,483 $32,560
$32,017 $31,566 $39,772 $33,345 $57,063 $68,381 $71,927 $77,016 $78,227
$7,966
$1,843 $13,185
$7,013 $17,087 $28,500 $31,687 $33,215 $32,094
$24,050 $29,723 $26,588 $26,333 $39,976 $39,881 $40,240 $43,800 $46,133
287.8%
957.1%
1157.7%
660.7%
144.3%
302.9%
91.8%
$11,580
$6,070 $17,024 $15,303 $25,213 $37,873 $39,989 $42,125 $43,021
$134,643 $207,042 $258,901 $438,017 $452,493 $469,919 $475,275 $509,536 $549,039
271.5%
307.8%
136
345.0%
350.1%
270.4%
42.5%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
than doubling their share of personal income from 8.9 percent to 18.3 percent. This is likely due
to the aging of the population, resulting in more retirees who receive Social Security. From at
least 1970 through 1984 the residence adjustment for Iron County was negative; it turned
positive in 1985 and has remained so through 2005. There was a net loss of earnings leaving the
county with in-commuters until 1985, when resident out-commuters began bringing in more
earnings than left.
Kane County
Kane County saw total personal income grow 334.8 percent from 1970 to 2005 (Table 6.5),
averaging 4.3 percent annually. Per capita personal income grew at a slower 1.5 percent annual
rate, increasing 69.6 percent over the period. All of the income growth was in nonfarm income;
farm income fell 105.3 percent, from $1.5 million in 1970 to an $82,000 loss in 2005. However,
in the last decade only three years had farm losses, with positive income in the other years. Net
earnings grew at an average annual rate of 3.6 percent over the period, from $29.7 million to
$103.3 million, but their share of total income fell from 75.5 percent to 60.4 percent. They were
replaced by investment income and personal current transfer receipts, which increased their
shares from 14.4 percent to 21.2 percent and from 10.1 percent to 18.5 percent, respectively. In
fact, investment income grew an average of 5.5 percent annually, from $5.6 million to $36.2
million, and transfer receipts grew 6.1 percent annually, from $4.0 million to $31.6 million. The
residence adjustment for Kane County was consistently positive over the period, indicating that
residents commuting outside the county for work brought in more earnings than non-county
residents working in Kane took home with them.
Washington County
Washington County had by far the greatest growth in total personal income of the five-county
region (Table 6.6). From 1970 to 2005 total personal income grew 1198.3 percent, from $207.2
million to $2.7 billion; an average annual growth rate of 7.6 percent. Despite these large gains,
per capita income increased only 51.5 percent, an annual rate of 1.2 percent, from $14,897 to
$22,565. This was the second slowest growth in the region. Farm income declined from 5.1
percent of total income in 1970 to –0.1 percent in 2005, and in fact has been consistently
negative since 1995. Net earnings grew an average of 7.2 percent annually, but their share of
total income fell from 71.0 percent to 61.9 percent. Investment income grew 1358.7 percent (8.0
percent annually) from $36.0 million to $525.4 million, and increased its share of total income
slightly from 17.4 percent to 19.5 percent. The income component experiencing the largest gains
was personal current transfer receipts, up 1979.4 percent, from $24.1 million to $500.1 million.
This 9.1 percent average annual increase raised transfer receipts’ share of total income from 11.6
percent to 18.6 percent. Like Kane County, the residence adjustment for Washington County
was consistently positive over the period, indicating a net inflow of earnings from inter-county
commuters.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
137
Table 6.5
Components of Personal Income in Kane County, 1970–2005
1970
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Change
Personal income
Farm income
Farm earnings
Nonfarm earnings
$39,353 $68,416 $102,393 $149,690 $150,114 $150,104 $156,303 $162,983 $171,106 334.8%
$37,817 $67,201 $101,726 $149,647 $149,820 $150,699 $156,262 $162,396 $171,188 352.7%
$1,536
$1,215
$667
$43
$293
–$594
$41
$586
–$82 –105.3%
$16,157 $16,944 $19,820 $24,625 $25,208 $24,876 $25,746 $26,658 $27,456
69.9%
$25,399
$1,463
$823
$640
$5,790
$29,726
$5,649
$3,978
$34,995
$3,106
$1,597
$1,509
$11,872
$43,760
$16,053
$8,603
$52,131
$5,660
$3,158
$2,502
$16,975
$63,447
$23,193
$15,753
$83,430
$9,130
$4,999
$4,132
$14,333
$88,632
$34,142
$26,916
$83,155
$9,191
$4,967
$4,224
$11,218
$85,182
$37,940
$26,991
$82,429
$9,413
$5,038
$4,375
$12,878
$85,894
$35,838
$28,373
$88,854
$10,141
$5,395
$4,746
$13,231
$91,944
$34,905
$29,454
$92,153 $99,110
$10,531 $11,570
$5,554
$6,078
$4,978
$5,492
$14,821 $15,748
$96,442 $103,288
$36,758 $36,209
$29,782 $31,609
$15,490 $22,827
$1,447
$3,799
$807
$2,290
$640
$1,509
$8,461
$8,369
$875
$547
$7,586
$7,822
$32,892
$7,327
$4,825
$2,502
$11,913
$440
$11,473
$56,524
$13,241
$9,110
$4,132
$13,665
–$200
$13,865
$59,695
$14,061
$9,837
$4,224
$9,398
$59
$9,339
$60,288
$14,425
$10,049
$4,375
$7,716
–$863
$8,578
$63,822
$16,121
$11,375
$4,746
$8,911
–$191
$9,102
$64,941
$17,198
$12,220
$4,978
$10,013
$337
$9,676
$69,999 351.9%
$19,192 1225.9%
$13,700 1597.5%
$5,492 757.5%
$9,919
17.2%
–$389 –144.5%
$10,308
35.9%
$1,557
$1,234
$23,842 $33,760
$682
$51,449
$60
$83,370
$310
$82,845
–$578
$83,007
$59
$88,795
$604
$91,549
–$65 –104.2%
$99,175 316.0%
138
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
290.2%
690.8%
638.8%
757.5%
172.0%
247.5%
540.9%
694.6%
Table 6.6
Components of Personal Income in Washington County, 1970–2005
1970
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Change
Personal income
Farm income
Farm earnings
Nonfarm earnings
$207,153 $432,840
$196,661 $429,911
$10,492
$2,930
$14,897
$16,347
$932,263 $1,993,483 $2,089,340 $2,138,026 $2,223,165 $2,494,710 $2,689,441
$929,521 $1,995,250 $2,091,450 $2,142,951 $2,226,383 $2,496,011 $2,691,793
$2,742
–$1,767
–$2,110
–$4,925
–$3,218
–$1,301
–$2,352
$18,955
$21,848
$22,084
$21,464
$21,273
$22,582
$22,565
1198.3%
1268.7%
–122.4%
51.5%
$151,424 $260,865
$8,789
$22,655
$4,936
$11,877
$3,853
$10,778
$4,447
$14,670
$147,082 $252,880
$36,021 $116,819
$24,050
$63,142
$574,600 $1,239,007 $1,313,258 $1,397,355 $1,477,764 $1,658,613 $1,868,546
$63,734
$141,119
$148,224
$159,731
$173,095
$194,536
$223,446
$35,385
$74,630
$78,253
$83,549
$89,217
$98,190
$111,223
$28,350
$66,489
$69,972
$76,182
$83,878
$96,346
$112,223
$13,306
$27,391
$25,681
$23,786
$22,927
$22,477
$18,801
$524,172 $1,125,279 $1,190,715 $1,261,410 $1,327,596 $1,486,554 $1,663,901
$249,381
$515,957
$523,222
$474,195
$467,607
$542,132
$525,446
$158,710
$352,248
$375,403
$402,421
$427,962
$466,024
$500,094
1134.0%
2442.3%
2153.3%
2812.6%
322.8%
1031.3%
1358.7%
1979.4%
$364,745
$74,469
$46,119
$28,350
$135,387
$2,060
$133,327
$998,643 $1,058,554 $1,170,854 $1,322,704
$212,666
$237,850
$273,430
$316,109
$136,484
$153,972
$177,084
$203,886
$76,182
$83,878
$96,346
$112,223
$186,046
$181,360
$214,329
$229,733
–$6,564
–$4,646
–$2,844
–$4,268
$192,610
$186,005
$217,173
$234,001
1385.8%
3742.5%
4561.6%
2812.6%
324.0%
–151.3%
410.3%
$2,791
–$1,649
–$1,994
–$4,822
–$3,104
–$1,190
–$2,243
$571,810 $1,240,656 $1,315,253 $1,402,177 $1,480,867 $1,659,803 $1,870,789
–121.2%
1228.2%
$89,021 $166,190
$8,227
$28,830
$4,374
$18,051
$3,853
$10,778
$54,177
$65,845
$8,320
$1,172
$45,856
$64,672
$10,570
$2,999
$140,855 $257,866
$904,874
$181,305
$114,816
$66,489
$152,828
–$3,199
$156,026
$942,860
$191,920
$121,948
$69,972
$178,479
–$3,508
$181,987
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
139
7Retail Sales
Retail sales data indicate the level and direction of consumer activity. Retail sales per capita
provide some indication of whether or not there is retail “leakage” from an area; that is, are
people leaving the area or going online to do their shopping? If, for example, a county has
declining sales per capita while a neighboring county has increasing sales per capita, sales may be
“leaking” from the first county to the second.
The Utah State Tax Commission reports gross taxable sales by industry. The earliest year for
which complete data are available is 1978, therefore BEBR analyzed changes in retail sales from
1980 to 2006. To remove the effects of inflation, all amounts were converted to constant 2006
dollars.
Southwest Region
In the five-county region of southwestern Utah, total retail sales grew more than 400 percent
from $391 million in 1980 to $2.1 billion in 2006 (Table 7.1). This was driven largely by
Washington County, whose total sales grew 726.5 percent and whose share of regional sales
increased from half to three-quarters over the period (Table 7.6). Iron County also saw
significant retail sales growth of 205.5 percent, although its share of regional sales declined from
35.0 percent to 19.6 percent. In fact, the two counties receive the lion’s share of retail activity in
the region, accounting for 85 percent of regional retail sales in 1980 and fully 95 percent in 2006.
Per capita retail sales in the region increased 56.6 percent over the period, from $6,974 to
$10,923.
General merchandise and building and garden experienced the greatest gains from 1980 to 2006,
growing 763.5 percent and 616.3 percent, respectively. Sales in the former category, which
includes department stores and establishments like Costco and Wal-Mart, grew from $57.2
million to $493.8 million. Building and garden sales, closely tied to the residential construction
boom in Washington County, grew from $46.6 million to $333.8 million.
In 1980, the largest retail sectors were motor vehicles, which represented 20.4 percent of total
retail sales, food stores, with 18.7 percent, and general merchandise, at 14.6 percent. By 2006,
due to its rapid growth general merchandise had become the largest category, accounting for
23.1 percent of retail sales. Motor vehicles had slipped to second place, with 19.4 percent of total
sales, and building and garden was third, at 15.6 percent. Apparel and accessory sales and
furniture sales have consistently been the smallest segments of the retail market in the region,
accounting for only about 3 percent and 6 percent, respectively, of total sales over the period.
Beaver County
Beaver County was the only county in the region to see per capita retail sales decline from 1980
to 2006 (Table 7.2). They were down 9.7 percent, from $4,859 to $4,388. As might be expected,
the county also had the lowest growth in total sales, gaining 31.9 percent from $21.4 million to
$28.2 million. Beaver’s share of total regional sales declined from 5.5 percent in 1980 to 1.3
percent in 2006. Given the decline in per capita sales and the county’s shrinking market share,
Beaver County residents appear to be leaving the county to shop, most likely going to Iron or
Washington counties.
140
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 7.1
Five-County Taxable Retail Sales by Category, 1980–2006
Building &
Garden
Amount Share
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Change
$46,605.1
$64,043.8
$145,568.1
$154,161.7
$160,102.4
$193,626.9
$261,871.6
$345,127.5
$333,845.3
616.3%
11.9%
9.6%
11.2%
11.4%
11.2%
12.8%
15.0%
17.1%
15.6%
General
Merchandise
Amount Share
$57,185.7
$103,247.6
$227,364.6
$302,914.2
$359,306.5
$381,329.6
$416,856.2
$457,978.6
$493,797.9
763.5%
14.6%
15.6%
17.5%
22.4%
25.2%
25.1%
23.9%
22.7%
23.1%
Food Stores
Motor Vehicles
Amount
Share
Amount
Share
$73,022.5
$171,729.1
$275,143.1
$237,641.3
$217,294.9
$211,847.1
$224,938.4
$246,619.8
$256,897.2
251.8%
18.7%
25.9%
21.2%
17.6%
15.2%
14.0%
12.9%
12.2%
12.0%
$79,898.4
$146,073.9
$258,624.9
$267,977.5
$285,254.6
$303,256.3
$329,287.8
$378,699.3
$416,002.9
420.7%
20.4%
22.0%
19.9%
19.8%
20.0%
20.0%
18.9%
18.8%
19.4%
Apparel &
Accessory
Amount Share
$12,433.1
$21,962.8
$54,646.3
$49,054.8
$48,941.5
$53,466.4
$66,052.1
$75,359.9
$76,503.1
515.3%
Furniture
Amount
3.2% $23,733.5
3.3% $20,163.2
4.2% $80,930.5
3.6% $71,165.1
3.4% $72,789.1
3.5% $79,289.0
3.8% $109,104.3
3.7% $134,240.6
3.6% $140,334.6
491.3%
Share
6.1%
3.0%
6.2%
5.3%
5.1%
5.2%
6.3%
6.7%
6.6%
Eating &
Drinking
Amount Share
$51,184.0
$70,853.5
$144,894.2
$147,312.2
$154,867.5
$160,564.0
$184,717.8
$207,121.7
$219,109.0
328.1%
13.1%
10.7%
11.2%
10.9%
10.8%
10.6%
10.6%
10.3%
10.2%
Miscellaneous
Amount
Per
Capita
Total
Share
(dollars)
$46,845.6 12.0%
$390,907.9 $6,974
$65,781.9 9.9%
$663,855.9 $7,922
$110,450.3 8.5% $1,297,622.1 $9,138
$120,042.9 8.9% $1,350,269.7 $9,044
$129,523.7 9.1% $1,428,080.2 $9,113
$135,148.2 8.9% $1,518,527.5 $9,255
$152,420.0 8.7% $1,745,248.1 $10,075
$170,261.5 8.4% $2,015,408.8 $10,848
$202,515.1 9.5% $2,139,005.1 $10,923
332.3%
447.2%
56.6%
Table 7.2
Beaver County Taxable Retail Sales by Category, 1980–2006
Building &
Garden
General
Merchandise
Amount Share Amount Share
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Change
$540.2
$591.2
$1,869.8
$2,142.0
$1,375.9
$2,228.4
$2,309.3
$2,003.3
270.8%
2.5%
2.2%
6.5%
6.8%
4.9%
7.5%
8.6%
7.1%
$733.4
$570.4
$459.5
$438.9
$371.4
$387.6
$357.5
$423.0
3.4%
2.1%
1.6%
1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.5%
Food Stores
Amount
$7,253.1
$9,464.0
$8,515.5
$8,920.5
$8,612.3
$8,206.1
$8,107.4
$11,067.5
$12,072.0
66.4%
Apparel &
Accessory
Motor Vehicles
Share Amount
Share
33.9%
43.9%
31.1%
31.1%
27.2%
29.0%
27.2%
41.1%
42.8%
29.1% $1,010.2
18.7%
$457.6
24.0%
$96.1
21.9%
$46.0
24.8%
$33.9
28.2%
$23.9
28.0%
$66.4
13.5%
$94.1
11.7%
$119.9
–88.1%
$6,217.7
$4,036.3
$6,555.5
$6,285.6
$7,834.8
$7,983.9
$8,374.1
$3,638.0
$3,289.2
–47.1%
Furniture
Eating &
Drinking
Miscellaneous
Total
Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share
4.7%
$773.1
2.1%
$613.5
0.4%
$724.9
0.2%
$789.2
0.1% $1,628.4
0.1%
$585.4
0.2%
$637.8
0.3%
$265.1
0.4%
$208.1
–73.1%
3.6%
2.8%
2.7%
2.8%
5.1%
2.1%
2.1%
1.0%
0.7%
$4,049.7
$3,222.7
$7,275.2
$6,934.6
$7,376.1
$6,621.4
$6,780.1
$6,753.6
$7,028.3
73.5%
18.9%
15.0%
26.6%
24.2%
23.3%
23.4%
22.7%
25.1%
24.9%
$1,537.0
$3,021.6
$3,015.2
$3,385.7
$3,585.1
$3,102.6
$3,275.8
$2,470.4
$3,064.6
99.4%
7.2%
14.0%
11.0%
11.8%
11.3%
11.0%
11.0%
9.2%
10.9%
$21,381.0
$21,549.2
$27,344.0
$28,690.9
$31,651.6
$28,270.8
$29,857.8
$26,955.6
$28,208.3
31.9%
Share
Per
of
Capita
Region (dollars)
5.5%
3.2%
2.1%
2.1%
2.2%
1.9%
1.7%
1.3%
1.3%
$4,859
$4,506
$4,540
$4,629
$5,036
$4,498
$4,733
$4,251
$4,388
–9.7%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
141
Food stores, eating and drinking establishments, and motor vehicle dealers (and related) are the
main recipients of retail dollars in Beaver. These three categories accounted for about 80 percent
of the county’s retail sales in both 1980 and 2006, with motor vehicle dealers losing market share
while food stores and eating and drinking establishments gained. Building and garden saw the
greatest growth over the period; sales increased 270.8 percent from $540,200 to $2.0 million.
Sales of apparel and accessory, furniture, general merchandise, and motor vehicles all declined
over the period.
Garfield County
Garfield County had the second slowest retail sales growth in the region, gaining only 39.1
percent to $20.7 million (Table 7.3). Per capita sales in 2006 were up only 7.9 percent over their
1980 level, and at $4,338 they were the lowest in the region. The county’s share of total regional
sales declined over the period from 3.8 percent to 1.0 percent. The low level of per capita sales
and weakening regional retail position imply that Garfield is likely losing sales to Iron and/or
Washington counties.
The main retail categories in Garfield are food stores, motor vehicles and related, and
miscellaneous, which includes drug stores, sporting goods, and souvenir shops. Together, these
three categories accounted for two-thirds of sales in both 1980 and 2006. Furniture sales have
seen the greatest growth, increasing 258.5 percent from $325,400 in 1980 to almost $1.2 million
in 2006. General merchandise sales, on the other hand, fell almost 75 percent, from $2.5 million
and 16.8 percent of total retail sales in 1980 to $653,400 and 3.2 percent of total sales in 2006.
Iron County
Iron County (Table 7.4) is second only to Washington County in total sales growth (205.5
percent), share of regional sales (19.6 percent in 2006), and in retail sales per capita ($9,631 in
2006). Total sales in Iron grew from $136.9 million in 1980 to $418.2 million in 2006. Although
the county has the largest share of regional sales outside of Washington County, it has lost
market share (to Washington) since 1980, when it captured 35.0 percent of regional sales. Iron’s
2006 per capita sales were more than double those in Beaver and Garfield, and $1,000 more than
Kane County’s. However, per capita sales growth has been modest in Iron County at 23.1
percent over the period.
Retail sales in Iron are fairly well diversified across categories. In 1980, the largest category was
motor vehicles and related, which accounted for 27.5 percent of total retail sales. General
merchandise, food stores, eating and drinking, and miscellaneous each represented 12–14% of
total sales. Building and garden, apparel and accessory, and furniture each captured less than 10
percent of sales. In 2006, general merchandise had doubled its share to become the largest
category, accounting for 26.9 percent of retail sales. Building and garden also doubled its share
of sales, to 20.0 percent. These were the only two categories to gain market share over the
period. Food stores, motor vehicles, and eating and drinking each captured 11–16% of sales,
with the remaining categories accounting for less than 10 percent each. building and garden
stores and general merchandise outlets, which includes Wal-Mart, saw the greatest sales
increases, with gains of 575.4 percent and 519.8 percent, respectively.
142
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 7.3
Garfield County Taxable Retail Sales by Category, 1980–2006
Building &
Garden
General
Merchandise
Food Stores
Apparel &
Accessory
Motor Vehicles
Furniture
Eating &
Drinking
Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Change
$1,584.9
$1,340.3
$962.7
$1,131.3
$1,020.9
$1,079.1
$997.2
$1,057.5
8.9%
6.0%
5.2%
5.7%
5.4%
5.0%
5.1%
5.1%
$2,501.9 16.8% $4,360.7 29.3% $2,596.6 17.5%
$1,426.7 8.1% $6,231.0 35.2% $3,465.5 19.6%
$316.4 1.4% $8,710.9 38.8% $1,808.6
8.1%
$293.0 1.6% $8,070.3 43.7% $1,393.8
7.5%
$267.4 1.3% $7,803.6 39.1% $1,214.6
6.1%
$273.5 1.5% $6,123.5 32.7% $2,176.5 11.6%
$167.8 0.8% $5,835.5 27.2% $3,338.9 15.6%
$634.1 3.2% $5,402.4 27.5% $3,694.6 18.8%
$653.4 3.2% $5,869.4 28.4% $4,535.4 21.9%
–73.9%
34.6%
74.7%
$325.4
$175.3
$127.0
$141.2
$109.5
$158.9
$222.3
$279.2
0.8%
$346.3
0.7%
$365.3
0.7%
$292.7
0.6%
$480.0
0.7%
$887.1
1.1% $1,139.7
1.3% $1,166.3
258.5%
2.2% $2,148.6
$1,699.7
1.5% $3,610.5
2.0% $2,682.1
1.5% $3,752.8
2.6% $3,473.1
4.1% $3,925.6
5.8% $3,961.0
5.6% $3,313.4
54.2%
Miscellaneous
Share
Amount
Share
14.4%
9.6%
16.1%
14.5%
18.8%
18.5%
18.3%
20.2%
16.0%
$2,945.1
$3,314.7
$6,157.6
$4,584.9
$5,335.7
$5,093.7
$6,051.2
$3,560.8
$3,826.6
29.9%
19.8%
18.7%
27.4%
24.8%
26.8%
27.2%
28.2%
18.2%
18.5%
Total
$14,878.2
$17,722.5
$22,465.9
$18,479.3
$19,939.2
$18,750.7
$21,444.0
$19,612.1
$20,701.3
39.1%
Share
Per
of
Capita
Region (dollars)
3.8%
2.7%
1.7%
1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
1.2%
1.0%
1.0%
$4,021
$4,464
$4,717
$3,991
$4,336
$4,137
$4,637
$4,170
$4,338
7.9%
Table 7.4
Iron County Taxable Retail Sales by Category, 1980–2006
Building &
Garden
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Change
General
Merchandise
Amount
Share
$12,356.1
$15,219.2
$30,829.2
$26,532.4
$27,885.8
$29,848.0
$42,334.8
$70,409.6
$83,451.2
575.4%
9.0% $18,138.9 13.2%
8.8% $26,307.2 15.1%
10.8% $64,693.0 22.6%
9.2% $78,816.3 27.5%
9.5% $90,908.4 31.0%
9.9% $95,176.1 31.7%
12.9% $99,590.7 30.4%
18.5% $105,804.4 27.8%
20.0% $112,416.2 26.9%
519.8%
Amount
Share
Food Stores
Motor Vehicles
Amount
Share
Amount
$18,306.7
$44,237.8
$68,422.1
$54,540.5
$46,970.2
$44,206.3
$44,727.6
$46,180.9
$50,085.1
173.6%
13.4%
25.4%
23.9%
19.0%
16.0%
14.7%
13.7%
12.1%
12.0%
$37,702.6
$43,905.5
$56,007.9
$58,670.8
$58,253.8
$57,443.6
$60,336.9
$62,178.8
$67,426.9
78.8%
Apparel &
Accessory
Furniture
Share Amount Share
Amount
27.5%
25.3%
19.6%
20.4%
19.8%
19.1%
18.4%
16.3%
16.1%
$8,596.4
$5,917.4
$10,639.3
$9,581.6
$9,455.7
$11,400.6
$12,790.6
$14,593.7
$14,602.5
69.9%
$5,089.5
$4,173.2
$3,252.9
$3,177.1
$3,363.0
$3,766.1
$4,204.4
$4,956.6
$5,190.5
2.0%
3.7%
2.4%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.2%
Share
6.3%
3.4%
3.7%
3.3%
3.2%
3.8%
3.9%
3.8%
3.5%
Eating &
Drinking
Miscellaneous
Total
Amount
Share
Amount
$19,594.0
$18,239.1
$32,224.7
$34,178.3
$33,335.9
$34,231.2
$37,729.8
$42,911.3
$46,058.0
135.1%
14.3%
10.5%
11.3%
11.9%
11.4%
11.4%
11.5%
11.3%
11.0%
$17,118.6 12.5% $136,902.7
$15,878.4 9.1% $173,877.8
$20,343.3 7.1% $286,412.3
$21,590.5 7.5% $287,087.4
$23,496.1 8.0% $293,668.9
$24,318.2 8.1% $300,390.1
$25,710.3 7.9% $327,425.2
$34,233.2 9.0% $381,268.4
$38,966.1 9.3% $418,196.5
127.6%
205.5%
Share
Share
of
Region
35.0%
26.2%
22.1%
21.3%
20.6%
19.8%
18.8%
18.9%
19.6%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
143
Per
Capita
(dollars)
$7,823
$8,316
$8,404
$8,078
$8,130
$7,998
$8,412
$9,210
$9,631
23.1%
Kane County
Kane County was close behind Iron County in 1980–2006 retail sales growth, with total sales
increasing 146.5 percent from $22.0 million to $54.3 million (Table 7.5). Per capita sales growth
was the second fastest in the region at 58.6 percent. However, the county’s regional market share
declined by more than half, from 5.6 percent to 2.5 percent.
Four sectors, food stores, motor vehicles and related, eating and drinking, and miscellaneous,
accounted for 80 percent of Kane’s total retail sales in 2006. Shares ranged from 16.7 percent for
miscellaneous, with $9.1 million in sales, to 25.9 percent for food stores, with $14.1 million in
sales. Furniture sales, which represented only 2.7 percent of retail sales in 2006, experienced the
greatest growth over the period, climbing 642.2 percent from 1980. Much of that growth
occurred in 2006, when sales jumped to almost $1.5 million from less than half a million in 2005.
The next fastest growing sectors were food stores, up 264.4 percent; miscellaneous, up 237.9
percent, and building and garden, up 217.2 percent to $6.0 million. Only general merchandise
sales saw a decline over the period, from $3.2 million to $2.8 million for a 10.1 percent loss.
Apparel and accessory stores saw a remarkable four-and-a-half-fold gain in sales from 1990 to
2006, increasing annual sales by $180 million in 16 years.
Washington County
As mentioned above, Washington County is the dominant retail market in the five-county
southwest region (Table 7.6). In 2006 it captured 75.6 percent of total sales in the region with
$1.6 billion in sales; it had the highest sales per capita at $11,991; and it experienced the highest
growth rates of both total sales (726.5 percent) and per capita sales (61.7 percent) from 1980
through 2006. The county’s market share in the region grew by half over the period, from a
substantial 50.1 percent in 1980. This rapid growth has been fueled by the county’s population
explosion as well as by a growing number of shoppers coming from other counties in the region.
All retail categories in Washington County saw substantial gains from 1980 to 2006, the least
being 345.5 percent for food stores. Three categories experienced better than tenfold increases
in sales: apparel and accessory sales grew from $6.3 million to $70.7 million, motor vehicle sales
grew from $28.2 million to $330.3 million, and general merchandise sales grew from $33.4
million to $377.5 million. The four largest categories in 2006 were general merchandise (23.3
percent), motor vehicles and related (20.4 percent), building and garden (14.9 percent), and food
stores (10.8 percent). Together they accounted for more than two-thirds of retail sales in the
county. General merchandise and motor vehicles saw the largest increases in sales share over the
period, from 17.1 percent to 23.3 percent and from 14.4 percent to 20.4 percent, respectively.
All other categories except apparel and accessory stores and furniture stores saw their shares of
total sales shrink.
By way of comparison, 2006 total retail sales along the Wasatch Front were $2.3 billion in Davis
County, $11.1 billion in Salt Lake County, $3.9 billion in Utah County, and $1.9 billion in Weber
County. Retail sales per capita were $8,155 in Davis, $11,165 in Salt Lake, $8,192 in Utah, and
$8,597 in Weber. Washington County’s 2006 per capita sales of $11,991 were slightly higher than
Salt Lake County’s, although its total sales and population were less than 15 percent of Salt
Lake’s. Iron County’s per capita sales of $9,631 fell between those of Weber and Salt Lake
counties, while its total sales and population were both about one-fifth of Weber’s and only
about 4 percent of Salt Lake’s.
144
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 7.5
Kane County Taxable Retail Sales by Category, 1980–2006
Building &
Garden
General
Merchandise
Food Stores
Amount Share Amount Share
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Change
Amount
Apparel &
Accessory
Motor Vehicles
Share
Amount
Furniture
Share Amount Share Amount Share
$1,897.1
8.6% $3,159.2 14.3% $3,857.1 17.5% $5,212.8
$2,268.7
7.0% $3,443.2 10.6% $12,601.6 38.9% $5,076.9
$4,436.5 10.1%
$535.0 1.2% $14,713.3 33.4% $7,449.4
$3,586.4
9.0%
$366.9 0.9% $13,823.1 34.6% $7,281.5
$3,081.3
7.6%
$757.5 1.9% $13,040.8 32.1% $7,817.4
$3,427.1
8.0% $1,256.8 2.9% $12,626.9 29.3% $7,861.7
$3,794.4
8.8% $1,390.9 3.2% $12,763.3 29.5% $8,345.4
$5,817.6 11.8% $1,558.2 3.2% $13,222.6 26.9% $8,929.0
$6,016.7 11.1% $2,840.2 5.2% $14,053.4 25.9% $10,486.2
217.2%
–10.1%
264.4%
101.2%
23.7%
15.7%
16.9%
18.2%
19.3%
18.2%
19.3%
18.1%
19.3%
$51.9
$132.8
$106.0
$120.6
$98.8
$142.7
$232.7
$233.4
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
$200.5
$214.0
$620.3
$655.2
$613.0
$1,275.0
$656.2
$458.6
$1,487.9
642.2%
Eating &
Drinking
Amount
Miscellaneous
Share
0.9% $5,021.8 22.8%
0.7% $5,906.3 18.2%
1.4% $9,955.7 22.6%
1.6% $8,392.6 21.0%
1.5% $8,403.0 20.7%
3.0% $8,615.1 20.0%
1.5% $9,324.0 21.5%
0.9% $10,189.6 20.7%
2.7% $10,132.0 18.7%
101.8%
Amount
Share
$2,683.1
$2,837.2
$6,239.4
$5,754.9
$6,731.1
$7,930.8
$6,865.6
$8,826.9
$9,066.9
237.9%
12.2%
8.8%
14.2%
14.4%
16.6%
18.4%
15.9%
17.9%
16.7%
Total
Share
Per
of
Capita
Region (dollars)
$22,031.5
$32,399.6
$44,082.4
$39,966.6
$40,564.7
$43,092.3
$43,282.7
$49,235.2
$54,316.6
146.5%
5.6%
4.9%
3.4%
3.0%
2.8%
2.8%
2.5%
2.4%
2.5%
$5,440
$6,291
$7,302
$6,620
$6,808
$7,258
$7,147
$7,927
$8,630
58.6%
Table 7.6
Washington County Taxable Retail Sales by Category, 1980–2006
Building &
Garden
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Change
General
Merchandise
Food Stores
Motor Vehicles
Apparel &
Accessory
Amount
Share
Amount
Share
Amount
Share
Amount
Share
Amount
$31,811.7
$44,971.1
$108,370.9
$121,210.4
$125,862.0
$157,955.1
$212,434.9
$265,593.8
$241,316.7
658.6%
16.3%
10.8%
11.8%
12.4%
12.1%
14.0%
16.1%
17.3%
14.9%
$33,385.6
$71,337.1
$161,249.8
$222,978.5
$266,934.2
$284,251.7
$315,319.1
$349,624.5
$377,465.1
1030.6%
17.1%
17.1%
17.6%
22.8%
25.6%
25.2%
23.8%
22.7%
23.3%
$39,245.0
$99,194.7
$174,781.3
$152,286.9
$140,868.0
$140,684.3
$153,504.6
$170,746.4
$174,817.3
345.5%
20.1%
23.7%
19.1%
15.6%
13.5%
12.5%
11.6%
11.1%
10.8%
$28,168.7
$89,589.7
$186,803.6
$194,345.9
$210,134.1
$227,790.6
$248,892.5
$300,258.9
$330,265.1
1072.5%
14.4%
21.4%
20.4%
19.9%
20.2%
20.2%
18.8%
19.5%
20.4%
$6,333.5
$17,280.1
$50,989.2
$45,598.6
$45,282.8
$49,468.1
$61,479.6
$69,854.2
$70,680.1
1016.0%
Share
Furniture
Amount
3.2% $13,838.2
4.1% $13,418.4
5.6% $68,599.7
4.7% $59,773.7
4.3% $60,799.3
4.4% $65,547.9
4.6% $94,132.6
4.5% $117,783.6
4.4% $122,869.8
787.9%
Share
7.1%
3.2%
7.5%
6.1%
5.8%
5.8%
7.1%
7.7%
7.6%
Eating & Drinking
Amount
Share
Miscellaneous
Amount
Total
Share
$20,369.9 10.4% $22,561.9 11.5%
$195,714.4
$41,785.8 10.0% $40,730.0 9.7%
$418,306.8
$91,828.1 10.0% $74,694.8 8.1%
$917,317.5
$95,124.6 9.7% $84,726.9 8.7%
$976,045.4
$101,999.7 9.8% $90,375.8 8.7% $1,042,255.9
$107,623.2 9.5% $94,702.8 8.4% $1,128,023.6
$126,958.2 9.6% $110,516.9 8.4% $1,323,238.4
$143,306.1 9.3% $121,170.1 7.9% $1,538,337.5
$152,577.3 9.4% $147,590.9 9.1% $1,617,582.4
649.0%
554.2%
726.5%
Share
Per
of
Capita
Region (dollars)
50.1%
63.0%
70.7%
72.3%
73.0%
74.3%
75.8%
76.3%
75.6%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
145
$7,413
$8,539
$10,069
$10,073
$10,046
$10,277
$11,279
$12,101
$11,991
61.7%
8Tourism
Since 1993, the Utah Division of Travel Development has published the State and County
Economic and Travel Indicator Profiles, showing the impacts of tourism in the state and its 29
counties. Over the years methodologies have changed, particularly in 2001 (covering the figures
for 2001 through 2003) and again in 2006 (covering 2004 through 2006). This means it is not
possible to compare tourism-related employment and spending figures over the entire time
period covered. The numbers are reported in Table 8.1 but there is no analysis of change.
However, gross taxable room rents are calculated simply by dividing gross transient room tax
revenues by the transient room tax rate, and as such are comparable over the study period.
Employment
Travel- and tourism-related employment’s share of total employment22 is an indicator of a
county’s dependence on tourism. By this measure, Garfield and Kane counties are by far the
most tourism-dependent in the region. Travel- and tourism-related employment in Garfield and
Kane had a median23 share of about 30 percent of total employment from 1990 to 2005, with
much larger shares in 2004 and 2005 under the most recent model. In Beaver County, a median
of about 15 percent of total employment was related to travel and tourism over the period. In
Washington and Iron counties, travel and tourism accounted for about 10 percent of total
employment, which is representative of the five-county region as a whole. By way of
comparison, travel and tourism represented a median of about 9 percent of total statewide
employment from 1990 through 2005. Estimated travel- and tourism-related employment in the
five counties in 2006 was as follows: Beaver County, 503; Garfield County, 2,626; Iron County,
2,533; Kane County, 1,718; and Washington County, 8,905.
Traveler Spending
Spending by travelers impacts local economies by injecting outside funds. Again, because of
changes in methodology by the Division of Travel Development over the study period, we
cannot make long-term comparisons. However, we can look at each county’s share of statewide
tourist spending.
Despite their relatively high dependence on tourism, as noted above, Garfield and Kane counties
captured on average less than 1.5 percent each of statewide tourist spending. Beaver County
took an even smaller share, averaging just 0.5 percent. Iron County averaged only about 2
percent, whereas Washington County, with the largest economy in the region, captured an
average of just over 6 percent. The region as a whole received an average of 12 percent of
statewide tourist spending from 1990 through 2006. Estimated spending by travelers in 2006 was
$26.4 million in Beaver, $137.8 million in Garfield, $133.0 million in Iron, $90.2 million in Kane,
and $467.4 million in Washington. Travelers spent an estimated $854.8 million in the region in
2006, which represents about one-seventh of statewide tourist spending.
Travel- and tourism-related employment was compared with total employment as reported by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, which includes farm employment and proprietors’ employment as well as nonagricultural and
wage employment. The BEA has not yet released employment figures for 2006.
23 The median is used here because it is not as sensitive to extreme values as is the average. Under the newest
methodology, the tourism-related employment shares for Garfield and Kane counties in 2004 and 2005 are
considerably higher than in previous years.
22
146
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 8.1
Tourism Impacts in the Southwest Region, 1990–2006
(dollar figures are in millions of constant 2006 dollars)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Beaver County
Travel & Tourism-Related Employment
Share of Total Employment
Spending by Travelers
Share of State
Gross Taxable Room Rents
Share of Region
313
14.8%
$26.3
0.6%
$3.1
5.2%
330
15.0%
$27.4
0.6%
$3.6
5.1%
348
15.8%
$28.1
0.6%
$3.7
4.9%
371
16.2%
$29.1
0.6%
$3.6
4.4%
384
14.9%
$29.0
0.6%
$3.3
4.1%
396
14.7%
$29.2
0.6%
$3.3
3.7%
417
14.1%
$29.5
0.6%
$3.3
3.6%
427
13.6%
$29.7
0.6%
$3.4
3.8%
450
14.4%
$30.4
0.6%
$3.7
4.1%
451
14.8%
$29.4
0.6%
$3.5
3.7%
464
14.9%
$28.8
0.6%
$3.6
3.8%
490
16.0%
$21.7
0.5%
$3.3
3.7%
529
17.5%
$17.2
0.3%
$3.9
4.2%
499
16.3%
$16.1
0.3%
$3.5
3.7%
555
17.8%
$29.9
0.5%
$3.3
3.2%
528
16.6%
$28.6
0.5%
$3.5
3.1%
Garfield County
Share of State
Share of Region
631
28.3%
$53.2
1.3%
$11.4
18.9%
664
30.0%
$55.6
1.3%
$13.4
18.9%
662
28.9%
$53.6
1.2%
$13.0
17.2%
763
31.8%
$59.8
1.3%
$13.8
16.9%
800
29.5%
$60.5
1.3%
$17.9
21.9%
831
31.2%
$61.4
1.3%
$19.1
21.4%
897
31.9%
$63.6
1.3%
$20.4
22.5%
986
33.1%
$68.4
1.3%
$20.4
22.2%
974
33.4%
$65.8
1.3%
$20.2
21.9%
1,114
35.9%
$72.3
1.4%
$20.2
21.3%
1,038
33.7%
$64.5
1.3%
$19.2
20.2%
1,000
32.8%
$40.4
0.9%
$16.5
18.4%
933
30.6%
$38.0
0.7%
$16.2
17.5%
904
2,940
2,881
2,626
29.6% 92.8% 87.2%
$35.4 $158.9 $156.6 $137.8
0.7%
2.6%
2.6%
2.3%
$16.7
$17.7
$18.9
$19.0
17.4% 17.1% 17.0% 16.1%
Iron County
Share of State
Share of Region
1,101
10.7%
$92.8
2.2%
$12.3
20.5%
1,159
11.1%
$96.8
2.2%
$14.9
20.9%
1,161
1,300
1,423
1,481
1,453
1,524
1,603
10.4% 10.7% 10.3% 10.0%
9.3%
8.9%
8.9%
$93.9 $102.0 $107.7 $109.3 $102.9 $105.8 $108.4
2.1%
2.2%
2.3%
2.3%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
$15.4
$15.7
$16.5
$15.8
$15.4
$15.6
$15.3
20.4% 19.3% 20.1% 17.7% 17.0% 17.0% 16.6%
1,504
8.1%
$97.7
1.9%
$15.6
16.4%
1,484
1,044
7.7%
5.4%
$92.3 $144.5
1.8%
3.2%
$16.5
$14.8
17.4% 16.6%
1,599
8.2%
$70.9
1.4%
$15.2
16.4%
1,848
2,842
2,801
2,533
9.3% 13.8% 12.8%
$68.7 $153.6 $152.2 $133.0
1.4%
2.6%
2.5%
2.3%
$16.4
$17.2
$18.3
$18.3
17.0% 16.6% 16.5% 15.6%
Kane County
Share of State
Share of Region
698
29.2%
$58.8
1.4%
$6.6
11.0%
735
31.1%
$61.4
1.4%
$9.2
12.9%
749
30.4%
$60.6
1.4%
$10.1
13.3%
929
26.3%
$60.4
1.2%
$11.2
11.8%
909
24.3%
$56.5
1.1%
$11.1
11.7%
1,046
28.2%
$53.9
1.0%
$9.3
10.1%
1,012
26.0%
$55.0
1.1%
$9.8
10.2%
Washington County
Share of State
Share of Region
2,441
2,570
11.4% 11.2%
$205.9 $215.0
4.9%
4.9%
$26.6
$30.1
44.3% 42.3%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
824
31.4%
$64.7
1.4%
$10.0
12.3%
889
29.7%
$67.2
1.5%
$9.7
11.8%
931
29.1%
$68.7
1.4%
$12.2
13.7%
953
29.4%
$67.5
1.4%
$11.6
12.8%
1,000
29.2%
$69.5
1.4%
$11.4
12.4%
1,031
29.3%
$69.7
1.4%
$10.3
11.2%
1,112
29.3%
$59.0
1.3%
$10.2
11.5%
1,829
45.4%
$98.9
1.6%
$11.0
10.7%
1,838
44.7%
$99.9
1.7%
$12.0
10.8%
2006
503
$26.4
0.4%
$3.6
3.1%
1,718
$90.2
1.5%
$12.4
10.5%
2,623
2,876
3,109
3,341
3,733
4,009
4,131
4,319
4,415
7,718
6,433
6,570
9,047
8,948
8,905
10.8% 10.5%
9.3%
9.3%
9.6%
9.8%
9.6%
9.5%
9.3% 15.6% 12.4% 12.1% 15.4% 14.0%
$212.2 $225.7 $235.0 $246.6 $264.4 $278.2 $279.3 $280.6 $274.4 $467.3 $501.6 $571.0 $488.9 $486.4 $467.4
4.8%
4.9%
5.1%
5.2%
5.3%
5.5%
5.4%
5.5%
5.5% 10.3%
9.6% 11.3%
8.1%
8.1%
7.9%
$33.3
$38.4
$34.5
$38.7
$39.9
$41.0
$42.7
$44.4
$44.7
$44.5
$48.1
$49.9
$54.2
$58.6
$64.3
44.1% 47.1% 42.1% 43.5% 44.1% 44.7% 46.3% 46.8% 46.9% 49.8% 51.9% 51.8% 52.4% 52.7% 54.7%
BUSINESS RESEARCH
147
Tourism Impacts in the Southwest Region, 1990–2006
(dollar figures are in millions of constant 2005 dollars)
1990
Southwest MCD
Share of State
Share of State
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
5,184
5,458
5,543
6,134
6,605
6,980
7,453
7,946
8,189
8,317
8,310 11,364 10,540 10,833 17,213 16,996 16,285
13.5% 13.6% 13.1% 13.1% 11.9% 11.8% 11.7% 11.8% 11.6% 11.3% 10.8% 14.4% 13.0% 12.9% 19.2% 17.6%
$436.9 $456.2 $448.3 $481.3 $499.4 $515.3 $527.8 $551.6 $553.5 $540.4 $516.5 $732.9 $681.6 $746.2 $930.2 $923.7 $854.8
10.5% 10.5% 10.1% 10.5% 10.8% 10.8% 10.6% 10.8% 10.8% 10.6% 10.3% 16.1% 13.0% 14.8% 15.5% 15.5% 14.5%
$60.0
$71.2
$75.5
$81.4
$81.9
$89.1
$90.5
$91.8
$92.3
$94.9
$95.2
$89.3
$92.8
$96.3 $103.5 $111.2 $117.6
14.7% 16.1% 16.6% 16.4% 15.8% 15.5% 14.5% 13.9% 13.6% 14.3% 14.2% 13.6% 12.5% 14.6% 14.7% 14.3% 13.4%
Notes: Employment and traveler spending figures for 2001–03 and 2004–06 were calculated using different methodologies from prior years; therefore, figures in these categories are not comparable over the full time
period. Travel- and tourism-related employment shares are of total (agricultural and nonagricultural, wage and proprietors’) employment as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis; these figures are available only
through 2005. Gross taxable room rents were not reported by the Division of Travel Development for 1990, 1991, and 2004–06. BEBR calculated them by dividing transient room tax collections in those years by the TRT
rate of 3.0 percent, which is consistent with the Division of Travel Development’s figures for the other years. This item is comparable across the full time series.
Source: Utah Division of Travel Development, State and County Economic and Travel Indicator Profiles.
Table 8.2
Estimated Park Visits, 1990–2006
1990
1991
1992
National Parks, Monuments, and Recreation Area
Bryce Canyon
862,659
929,067 1,018,174
Capitol Reef
562,477
618,056
675,837
Cedar Breaks
417,330
456,001
392,628
Glen Canyon
3,074,242 3,181,144 3,587,754
Grand Staircase-Escalante
Zion
2,102,400 2,236,997 2,390,626
Total Visits
7,019,108 7,421,265 8,065,019
State Parks
Anasazi (Garfield)
Coral Pink Sand Dunes (Kane)
Escalante (Garfield)
Gunlock (Washington)
Iron Mission (Iron)
Kodachrome Basin (Kane)
Minersville (Beaver)
Quail Creek (Washington)
Sand Hollow (Washington)
Snow Canyon (Washington)
Total Visits
43,699
98,415
32,961
36,468
25,945
33,801
13,297
26,190
189,702
500,478
45,279
110,417
49,736
34,190
31,396
48,355
9,944
71,049
45,832
170,160
59,052
82,066
27,929
64,149
7,218
352,173
1993
1994
1995
1,107,951 1,028,134
994,548
610,707
605,324
648,864
557,824
710,981
539,060
3,584,158 2,797,734 2,511,353
431,926
444,042
2,392,580 2,270,871 2,430,162
8,253,220 7,844,970 7,568,029
50,828
144,191
78,762
67,334
36,114
66,315
9,687
385,444
56,510
52,665
61,410
64,668
58,187
53,535
13,402
471,941
31,963
115,589
86,792
56,942
50,984
66,132
11,883
463,170
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1,269,600
678,012
543,760
2,505,004
519,944
2,498,001
8,014,321
1,174,824
625,680
608,399
2,430,781
788,611
2,445,534
8,073,829
1,166,331
656,026
578,974
2,442,990
849,628
2,370,048
8,063,997
1,081,521
680,153
597,460
2,639,860
1,141,131
2,449,664
8,589,789
1,099,275
612,656
550,657
2,568,111
572,176
2,432,348
7,835,223
99,015
182,704
73,843
93,397
61,881
58,616
20,522
380,162
49,307
164,544
76,514
67,502
63,110
63,958
16,702
357,077
44,584
188,164
62,264
71,212
30,529
63,380
35,073
730,901
42,276
164,893
68,347
100,172
29,485
66,440
55,148
826,215
38,560
106,601
46,234
76,919
25,421
65,007
25,798
849,034
2002
2003
2004
1,068,619
886,436
903,760
987,253
527,760
525,646
535,441
549,708
690,652
586,938
569,455
516,331
2,340,031 2,106,896 1,876,984 1,841,845
683,286
683,286
695,900
649,232
2,217,779 2,592,545 2,458,792 2,677,342
7,528,127 7,381,747 7,040,332 7,221,711
32,975
131,675
52,117
85,365
19,539
55,940
29,799
793,326
28,896
87,694
46,963
83,830
18,882
55,254
11,808
547,528
33,145
34,076
128,675
122,832
36,105
41,315
82,665
0
16,549
17,139
57,689
59,463
N/A
N/A
514,718
164,945
135,749
352,949
454,341
462,448
541,292
568,149
685,615
649,571
646,204
674,498
612,093
502,107
435,210
347,804
277,285
287,132
854,707 1,271,027 1,379,967 1,400,467 1,569,070 1,619,711 1,504,918 1,900,605 1,965,069 1,735,681 1,635,946 1,228,659 1,282,580 1,079,851
2005
2006
1,017,681
890,676
550,255
511,511
505,158
488,376
1,908,726 1,885,378
613,228
695,866
2,586,665 2,567,350
7,181,713 7,039,157
32,959
65,270
37,455
0
13,176
49,700
N/A
165,702
172,179
194,115
730,556
27,614
66,468
40,451
60,891
18,498
49,804
N/A
108,482
186,685
255,643
814,536
Change
3.2%
–9.1%
17.0%
–38.7%
61.1%
22.1%
0.3%
–36.8%
–32.5%
22.7%
67.0%
–28.7%
47.3%
314.2%
34.8%
62.8%
Utah Shakespearean Festival
122,469
116,976
117,300
111,679
110,021
132,000
130,700
132,402
127,842
134,926
132,770
139,396
135,734
124,104
124,051
1.3%
Note: Minersville State Park was transferred to county management in 2002; that year’s figure reflects visits only through June. The method for counting visits at Quail Creek State Park changed from 2003 to 2004, producing a sharp
decline in reported visitation. Sand Hollow State Park opened in 2003.
Source: National Park Service Visitation Database, available at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/NPstats/select_report.cfm?by=year, accessed February 6, 2008; Utah State Parks and Recreation; Utah Division of Travel Development, State and County Economic
and Travel Indicator Profiles; Utah Shakespearean Festival.
148
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Room Rents
Gross taxable room rents are a function of the number of rooms available (in hotels, motels,
condos, etc.) in a given county, room rates (their price), and occupancy rates (the percentage of
available rooms that are occupied over the course of a year). Therefore, taxable room rents
reflect not only the number of travelers to a particular county and their length of stay, but also
that county’s lodging capacity and prices. For example, two counties could have equal numbers
of available rooms and of visitors staying in those rooms, but if one county has lower prices it
will receive less room rents.
Since gross taxable room rents are based on actual room tax collections and are not estimated
from changing models, they can be compared over time. As Table 8.2 and Figure 8.1 show, after
adjusting for inflation only Washington County saw any significant growth in room rents from
1990 to 2006. Rents there increased from $26.6 million in 1990 to $64.3 million in 2006
(measured in constant 2006 dollars), a 141.8 percent gain. The next largest relative increases were
in Kane and Garfield counties, which saw room rents grow by 88.5 and 67.0 percent,
respectively. This represents real increases from $6.6 to $12.4 million in Kane and from $11.4 to
$19.0 million in Garfield. Iron County room rents increased from $12.3 million to $18.3 million
over the period, a 48.5 percent gain, but rents in Beaver County grew only 15.4 percent, from
$3.1 to $3.6 million.
As of 2006, Washington County collected by far the greatest share of room rents in the region,
accounting for more than half (54.7 percent) of the regional total, followed by Garfield with 16.1
percent, Iron at 15.6 percent, Kane with 10.5 percent, and Beaver at 3.1 percent. The region as a
whole accounted for 13.4 percent of statewide taxable room rents in 2006.
Figure 8.1
Gross Taxable Room Rents, 1990–2006
$70.0
Washington C ounty
Garfield C ounty
Iron C ounty
Kane C ounty
Beaver C ounty
$60.0
$50.0
$40.0
$30.0
$20.0
$10.0
$0.0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: Utah Division of Travel Development, State and County Economic and Travel Indicator Profiles.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
149
Park Visits
The main tourist draw to the southwest is its striking natural beauty. Within the five counties
that make up the region there are three national parks (Bryce Canyon, Zion, and part of Capitol
Reef), two national monuments (Cedar Breaks and Grand Staircase–Escalante), and a national
recreation area (Glen Canyon/Lake Powell). There are also several national forests and
wilderness areas, more than half a dozen state parks, and numerous state wildlife reserves.
Table 8.2 gives visitation numbers for 1990 through 2006. Total recreational visits to the
national sites were relatively flat over the period, peaking at 8,589,789 in 1999 before declining
to 7,039,157 in 2006, just 0.3 percent higher than their 1990 level. Visitation at Grand Staircase–
Escalante increased by 61.1 percent over 1994 levels, to 695,866 visits in 2006. Zion National
Park saw a 22.1 percent increase over 1990 levels, with more than 2.5 million visits in 2006.
Visits to Cedar Breaks grew 17.0 percent, increasing by 71,000 to 488,376. However, Glen
Canyon saw a 38.7 percent decline in visitation, with just under 1.9 million visitors in 2006.
Visits to Capitol Reef fell 9.1 percent, to 511,511.
State parks fared somewhat better. Total visits increased 62.8 percent from 500,478 in 1990 to
814,536 in 2006. Some of this growth was due to the opening of a new park, Sand Hollow in
Washington County, in 2003. However, the management of Minersville State Park was
transferred to Beaver County in 2002, so there are no visitation figures for 2003 forward, and the
counting method at Quail Creek was revised between 2003 and 2004, producing a sharp drop in
visits in 2004. In spite of this, Quail Creek saw the largest absolute and percentage gains of all
the state parks in the region. Visits grew 314.2 percent, from 26,190 in 1990 to 108,482 in 2006.
Visitation declined at three parks: Anasazi (down 36.8 percent), Coral Pink Sand Dunes (down
32.5 percent), and Iron Mission (down 28.7 percent). Washington County’s Snow Canyon was
the most heavily visited state park in the region in 2006, with 255,643 visits.
Figure 8.2
National Park, Monument, and Recreational Area Visits, 1990-2006
4.0
3.5
Glen C anyon
Zion
Bryce C anyon
C apitol Reef
C edar Breaks
Grand Staircase-Escalante
annual recreation visits
(millions)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: National Park Service Visitation Database; Utah Division of Travel Development, State and County Economic and
Travel Indicator Profiles.
150
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
9Government Finances
Property Taxes and Assessed Valuations
Property taxes are assessed at the local level, by counties and special districts, and at the state
level. Real property (land and buildings) and personal property (machinery, mobile homes, and
until 1994, motor vehicles) are assessed locally. Utilities (electric, water, gas, and phone
companies as well as airlines, railroads, and motor freight companies), natural resources (mining
companies, oil and gas companies, etc.), and, since 1994, motor vehicles are assessed centrally by
the state.
Table 9.1 shows locally assessed, centrally assessed, and total property taxes charged in each of
the five southwestern counties, plus the region as a whole, from 1970 to 2006. All amounts are
in constant 2006 dollars to adjust for inflation. The table also shows the region’s changing share
of total property taxes charged in the state.
All counties saw an increase in total property taxes charged, ranging from 79.0 percent in
Garfield to 1642.8 percent in Washington. However, in only two counties, Beaver and
Washington, did taxes assessed by the State Tax Commission increase over the period; all others
saw centrally assessed taxes decline. In 2006, Garfield County residents and businesses paid the
least in property taxes at $4.7 million, while Washington County residents and businesses paid
the most at $102.1 million. However, when we look at total property taxes per capita,
Washington County had the lowest burden in 2006 at $757 per capita, while Kane had the
highest at $1,660 per person. Iron was the only county in which per capita taxes declined over
the period, from $953 in 1970 to $831 in 2006. This was due to the county’s population growing
faster than assessed taxes.
The value of locally assessed property (real estate and personal property) increased in every
southwestern county over the period (Table 9.2). Not surprisingly, Washington County saw the
greatest growth; locally assessed property values grew from $336.4 million in 1970 (in constant
2006 dollars) to $10.5 billion in 2006, a more than 30-fold increase for an average compound
annual growth rate of 10 percent. By way of comparison, the value of locally assessed property
in the region grew 1450.7 percent, an average annual rate of 7.9 percent; and in the state as a
whole it increased by 350.9 percent, or 4.3 percent annually. The next fastest growing county in
the region was Kane, where assessed values of real and personal property increased 1164.1
percent, or 7.3 percent annually, from $100.9 million in 1970 to nearly $1.3 billion in 2006.
Beaver County had the least appreciation in locally assessed property values, realizing a 168.5
percent increase over the period from $127.2 million to $341.6 million, an annual growth rate of
2.8 percent.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
151
Table 9.1
Property Taxes Charged by County, 1970–2006
1970
1980
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
$1,958.8
$1,798.7
$3,757.5
$786
$3,757.7
$1,868.1
$5,625.8
$934
$3,542.1
$1,851.4
$5,393.5
$870
$3,768.4
$1,695.4
$5,463.8
$869
$3,845.3
$2,170.8
$6,016.1
$957
$3,896.2
$2,012.7
$5,908.9
$937
$4,026.8
$2,047.2
$6,074.0
$958
$4,048.6
$1,922.0
$5,970.6
$929
107.1%
69.8%
93.4%
15.8%
$2,099.9
$955.6
$3,055.5
$770
$3,276.2
$478.4
$3,754.6
$788
$3,248.9
$431.8
$3,680.7
$795
$3,562.8
$409.6
$3,972.4
$864
$3,960.2
$497.2
$4,457.4
$984
$3,986.5
$454.7
$4,441.1
$960
$3,972.8
$465.7
$4,438.5
$944
$4,200.9
$488.4
$4,689.3
$983
207.8%
–61.1%
79.0%
18.1%
$5,628.6 $8,634.4 $12,218.2
$6,096.9 $3,855.6 $3,270.4
$11,725.5 $12,490.0 $15,488.6
$953
$714
$741
$20,393.8
$2,152.6
$22,546.5
$662
$21,645.1
$2,358.1
$24,003.2
$675
$21,839.9
$2,021.9
$23,861.8
$661
$23,505.2
$2,679.0
$26,184.1
$697
$24,003.4
$2,524.1
$26,527.5
$682
$27,730.5
$2,522.0
$30,252.5
$731
$34,135.2
$1,944.7
$36,079.9
$831
506.5%
–68.1%
207.7%
–12.8%
$7,017.1
$195.7
$7,212.7
$1,161
$10,286.4
$162.2
$10,448.6
$1,660
581.2%
–57.8%
451.6%
114.7%
Beaver
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
Per Capita (dollars)
$1,955.3
$1,131.9
$3,087.2
$802
$1,919.9
$627.1
$2,547.0
$579
Garfield
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
$1,364.9
$1,255.2
$2,620.0
$832
$1,657.8
$839.6
$2,497.4
$675
Iron
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
1990
Kane
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
$1,510.1
$384.2
$1,894.3
$773
$3,662.7
$397.4
$4,060.2
$788
$5,282.3
$209.9
$5,492.1
$910
$5,414.8
$202.0
$5,616.8
$930
$6,020.1
$207.4
$6,227.4
$1,045
$6,180.2
$213.5
$6,393.7
$1,077
$5,837.9
$179.4
$6,017.3
$994
Washington
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
$5,174.5 $11,008.1 $28,402.1
$684.9
$818.9 $2,749.9
$5,859.4 $11,827.0 $31,152.0
$422
$448
$636
$61,165.9
$2,760.2
$63,926.0
$702
$60,271.1
$2,921.7
$63,192.8
$652
$69,054.9
$3,138.3
$72,193.2
$696
$72,769.1
$4,005.2
$76,774.3
$699
$76,125.8
$3,801.3
$79,927.1
$681
Southwest
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
Share of State
$1,822.8
$396.9
$2,219.7
$548
Change
$85,251.4 $99,284.0 1818.7%
$3,353.7
$2,832.2 313.5%
$88,605.1 $102,116.2 1642.8%
$697
$757
79.6%
$15,633.4 $25,043.0 $48,341.7 $93,875.9 $94,122.0 $104,246.0 $110,260.0 $113,849.8 $127,998.6 $151,955.0
$9,553.0 $6,538.1 $9,172.1
$7,469.1
$7,765.0
$7,472.6
$9,565.7
$8,972.2
$8,584.2
$7,349.6
$25,186.4 $31,581.1 $57,513.8 $101,345.0 $101,887.0 $111,718.6 $119,825.6 $122,821.9 $136,582.8 $159,304.6
3.0%
3.4%
4.6%
6.0%
5.8%
6.2%
6.5%
6.4%
7.0%
7.7%
872.0%
–23.1%
532.5%
Note: Motor vehicle taxes were initially assessed by the county. Beginning in 1994, this was replaced by a state-imposed “fee in lieu.” In order to maintain comparability, the fee in
lieu has here been added to locally assessed taxes for 2000 through 2006.
Source: Utah State Tax Commission, Property Tax Division, Annual Statistical Reports; Utah Population Estimates Committee.
152
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 9.2
Assessed Property Values by County, 1970–2006
1970
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Change
Beaver
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
$127,243.2
$79,856.8
$207,076.6
$140,698.5
$48,578.9
$189,269.8
$173,435.4
$166,614.6
$340,050.0
$317,075.7
$168,472.1
$485,547.9
$308,005.1
$172,909.8
$480,914.9
$319,268.1
$153,247.9
$472,516.0
$326,103.6
$198,565.6
$524,669.2
$328,326.2
$180,246.7
$508,572.9
$328,595.1
$175,691.8
$504,286.9
$341,635.9
$170,161.6
$511,797.5
168.5%
113.1%
147.2%
Garfield
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
$96,495.9
$105,327.0
$201,840.1
$196,081.7
$113,974.6
$310,045.4
$162,195.2
$81,746.5
$243,941.7
$302,530.8
$47,574.2
$350,105.0
$309,791.2
$43,910.5
$353,701.7
$336,659.1
$41,833.6
$378,492.7
$341,531.4
$45,944.4
$387,475.8
$361,530.1
$43,949.2
$405,479.3
$362,437.7
$45,663.1
$408,100.8
$385,811.3
$48,884.3
$434,695.7
299.8%
–53.6%
115.4%
Iron
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
$364,336.7
$493,087.7
$857,427.5
$631,323.7
$801,019.3 $1,697,903.0 $1,756,232.4 $1,815,119.1
$338,676.5
$245,506.0
$213,235.6
$225,826.0
$197,882.9
$970,000.2 $1,046,525.4 $1,911,138.6 $1,982,058.5 $2,013,002.0
$1,922,221.9
$264,014.4
$2,186,236.3
$1,987,847.0
$252,985.5
$2,240,832.5
$2,306,950.6
$247,053.5
$2,554,004.1
$3,372,615.2
$227,562.8
$3,600,178.0
825.7%
–53.8%
319.9%
Kane
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
$100,857.6
$27,085.6
$127,930.1
$124,346.0
$28,916.5
$153,261.1
$622,102.3
$23,514.3
$645,616.7
$649,966.8
$24,145.1
$674,112.0
$669,511.4
$21,788.0
$691,299.5
$779,126.8
$23,495.6
$802,622.4
Washington
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
$336,416.4
$48,463.4
$384,890.5
$739,705.1 $1,871,642.0 $5,234,904.3 $5,412,743.2 $6,037,168.4
$59,549.3
$200,456.1
$265,241.6
$288,303.1
$301,778.5
$799,258.0 $2,072,098.1 $5,500,145.9 $5,701,046.3 $6,338,946.9
$6,334,588.0
$396,553.1
$6,731,141.1
$6,672,211.1
$375,812.4
$7,048,023.6
Southwest
Locally Assessed
Centrally Assessed
Total
Share of State
$264,700.6
$29,740.2
$294,440.8
$556,993.2
$24,572.3
$581,565.5
$557,606.6
$22,175.2
$579,781.9
$1,274,897.3 1164.1%
$24,060.9
–11.2%
$1,298,958.1
915.4%
$8,006,737.8 $10,525,466.6 3028.7%
$357,598.2
$345,494.2
612.9%
$8,364,336.0 $10,870,960.8 2724.4%
$1,025,349.9 $1,832,155.0 $3,272,992.6 $8,109,407.0 $8,344,378.5 $9,130,317.1
$9,574,411.9 $10,019,425.9 $11,783,848.0 $15,900,426.3 1450.7%
$753,820.5
$589,695.8
$724,063.4
$719,095.9
$753,124.7
$718,257.2
$929,222.6
$874,781.9
$849,502.2
$816,163.8
8.3%
$1,779,164.9 $2,421,834.4 $3,997,056.0 $8,828,502.9 $9,097,503.2 $9,848,574.3 $10,503,634.5 $10,894,207.7 $12,633,350.2 $16,716,590.0
839.6%
3.6%
3.5%
5.1%
3.6%
3.5%
3.7%
3.9%
4.0%
4.4%
9.9%
Note: Prior to 1986, properties were valued at 20 percent of value; the figures here have been adjusted to reflect full values. Motor vehicles were initially assessed by the county; beginning in 1994,
this was replaced by a state-imposed “fee in lieu.” In order to maintain comparability, the fee in lieu valuation has here been added to locally assessed values for 2000 through 2006.
Source: Utah State Tax Commission, Property Tax Division, Annual Statistical Reports.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
153
Sales Tax Collections
The State Tax Commission collects local sales taxes then, after deducting a small administrative
fee, distributes the revenue back to the counties and municipalities based on both population
and point of sale. Table 9.3 shows local sales tax collections, net of the Tax Commission’s
administrative fee, by county and municipality. All amounts are in constant 2006 dollars.
Washington and Iron counties on the whole have collected, and continue to collect, the most
sales taxes of the five-county region. In 1970, their collections were fairly similar, with
Washington taking in $754,827 and Iron taking $748,075. However, by 2006 Washington had far
outpaced Iron, increasing 2750.2 percent to $21.5 million in sales taxes versus Iron’s nearly $6.0
million. Beaver County’s revenues, on the other hand, grew “only” 314.9 percent, from $175,825
in 1970 to $729,507 in 2006.
Because retail sales activity in a given location is related to its population, as well as to other
factors like the number of nonresidents who shop there, price of goods sold, etc., BEBR
calculated sales tax revenues per capita for each county in the region. This permits a comparison
that accounts for the counties’ widely differing populations. Using this metric, the differences
among counties are much smaller, with 2006 amounts ranging from $113 per capita in Beaver to
$181 in Kane, with Washington falling in the middle at $159. Some of the difference may be
attributed to variations in local sales tax rates.
154
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 9.3
Net* Local Sales Tax Collections, 1970–2006
1970
1980
1990
2000
2001
2002
$81,445
$47,219
$14,835
$32,325
$175,825
$46
$215,701
$91,970
$26,778
$19,854
$354,300
$81
$231,276
$93,142
$33,097
$72,267
$429,780
$90
$407,017
$172,519
$77,789
$126,187
$783,511
$130
$397,713
$189,571
$79,311
$127,207
$793,802
$128
Garfield
Antimony
Boulder
Cannonville
Escalante
Hatch
Henrieville
Panguitch
Tropic
remainder of county
Total
Per Capita
$705
$910
$1,088
$22,422
$6,074
$878
$89,426
$3,791
$44,376
$169,670
$54
$3,432
$2,210
$23,553
$6,025
$583
$141,674
$6,732
$201,966
$386,175
$104
$7,469
$11,180
$59,886
$9,226
$6,812
$159,331
$23,476
$206,080
$483,462
$122
$10,092
$24,644
$19,188
$104,354
$13,593
$13,019
$199,380
$62,568
$370,480
$817,316
$172
$10,421
$26,205
$21,841
$116,327
$13,623
$12,297
$197,708
$54,689
$361,942
$815,054
$176
Iron
Brian Head
Cedar City
Enoch
Kanarraville
Paragonah
Parowan
remainder of county
Total
Per Capita
$53,949
$72,868
$125,203
$140,791
$110,178
$139,580
$108,522
$130,052
$113,742
$708,039 $1,457,252 $1,550,299 $3,654,165 $3,665,971 $3,688,708 $3,888,972 $3,637,908 $3,979,452 $4,577,496
$34,461
$245,032
$263,161
$260,972
$254,824
$273,493
$294,007
$321,829
$2,089
$2,008
$11,723
$22,527
$24,172
$27,440
$26,866
$24,497
$28,160
$29,962
$1,674
$13,612
$37,825
$38,786
$39,573
$39,415
$40,367
$42,699
$46,504
$37,941
$72,054
$150,494
$226,851
$237,883
$265,420
$271,933
$256,235
$265,676
$281,215
$207,154
$232,755
$360,662
$400,868
$524,494
$514,938
$538,104
$573,191
$619,172
$748,075 $1,794,092 $2,066,213 $4,672,266 $4,771,632 $4,916,784 $5,136,529 $4,879,127 $5,313,237 $5,989,921
$61
$103
$99
$137
$134
$136
$137
$125
$128
$138
Beaver
Beaver City
Milford
Minersville
remainder of county
Total
Per Capita
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
2003
2004
2005
2006
$386,227
$608,992
$174,933
$219,360
$83,400
$87,993
$117,549
$143,104
$762,109 $1,059,449
$121
$169
$362,049
$167,555
$69,310
$120,784
$719,698
$114
$322,684
$186,837
$68,791
$117,535
$695,848
$110
$383,865
$139,119
$73,850
$132,673
$729,507
$113
371.3%
194.6%
397.8%
310.4%
314.9%
148.5%
$10,903
$24,941
$19,323
$93,277
$14,380
$12,334
$203,998
$60,656
$323,864
$763,678
$166
$11,918
$25,115
$16,914
$86,575
$14,091
$12,023
$190,644
$51,739
$337,867
$746,887
$161
$12,438
$27,423
$17,570
$88,907
$17,111
$11,396
$196,774
$67,617
$345,415
$784,650
$167
$13,469
$28,987
$16,542
$97,960
$16,742
$12,294
$193,975
$62,126
$373,804
$815,898
$171
1809.4%
3085.3%
1420.8%
336.9%
175.6%
1300.7%
116.9%
1538.8%
742.4%
380.9%
217.4%
$11,425
$23,235
$19,455
$88,034
$14,173
$11,712
$189,574
$53,508
$323,188
$734,303
$162
Change
546.5%
1334.1%
641.2%
700.7%
126.8%
155
Net* Local Sales Tax Collections, 1970–2006
1970
Kane
Alton
Big Water
Glendale
Kanab
Orderville
remainder of county
Total
Per Capita
Washington
Apple Valley
Enterprise
Hildale
Hurricane
Ivins
La Verkin
Leeds
New Harmony
Rockville
St. George
Santa Clara
Springdale
Toquerville
Virgin
Washington
remainder of county
Total
Per Capita
1980
1990
$969
$215
$4,399
$85,974
$8,853
$24,356
$124,551
$51
$9,258
$204,236
$12,663
$125,494
$351,866
$87
$3,110
$5,966
$13,057
$328,375
$30,796
$251,763
$633,068
$123
$10,468
$34,880
$2,294
$217,551
$5,326
$32,811
$4,976
$55,725
$48,989
$319,969
$41,268
$69,972
$10,990
$89,474
$528
$2,956
$2,175
$199
$5,251
$561,647 $1,807,584 $3,251,017
$6,031
$16,130
$72,996
$20,845
$45,039
$76,003
$1,330
$2,413
$13,107
$1,093
$1,247
$7,849
$12,924
$66,814
$229,175
$45,146
$187,268
$291,587
$754,827 $2,424,336 $4,493,901
$54
$92
$92
2000
$8,941
$37,064
$28,304
$574,256
$66,585
$458,040
$1,173,190
$194
2001
$8,679
$36,622
$28,723
$550,479
$72,196
$457,210
$1,153,910
$191
2002
2003
$9,914
$39,547
$27,986
$511,746
$77,465
$433,557
$1,100,217
$185
2004
$9,743
$39,624
$26,455
$499,623
$72,664
$401,827
$1,049,936
$177
$10,222
$37,047
$27,517
$516,049
$74,942
$353,112
$1,018,889
$168
2005
$10,328
$37,938
$27,269
$530,692
$76,127
$343,167
$1,025,521
$165
2006
$11,231
$40,197
$28,884
$590,241
$83,236
$387,505
$1,141,293
$181
Change
1058.7%
556.5%
586.5%
840.2%
1491.0%
816.3%
256.7%
$2,911
$43,118
$151,939
$147,141
$125,349
$120,992
$120,423
$135,756
$147,246
1306.6%
$206,421
$202,462
$184,022
$181,355
$195,513
$202,340
$232,152
$934,585
$997,217 $1,036,570 $1,028,734 $1,120,443
$1,270,983 $1,503,173
1580.0%
$348,980
$390,696
$390,716
$390,749
$446,825
$507,049
$579,968 109802.4%
$291,567
$293,471
$303,665
$319,252
$302,198
$335,294
$364,898 12243.2%
$27,256
$35,864
$50,396
$49,348
$51,807
$57,977
$63,626
2824.7%
$12,561
$13,893
$17,294
$16,194
$19,519
$19,457
$21,436 10659.0%
$19,550
$18,934
$19,024
$19,080
$18,937
$20,189
$21,716
$9,370,839 $9,609,492 $9,796,787 $9,911,815 $10,827,443 $12,253,317 $14,308,045
2447.5%
$363,592
$374,218
$382,206
$370,729
$409,607
$465,801
$512,757
8402.0%
$205,507
$207,985
$203,558
$208,370
$230,318
$259,353
$272,573
1207.6%
$60,118
$64,540
$69,582
$67,545
$70,860
$78,012
$86,397
6395.8%
$24,179
$29,421
$34,512
$33,994
$36,865
$39,904
$44,561
3976.5%
$959,859 $1,080,563 $1,596,708 $1,568,384 $1,782,686
$2,178,735 $2,620,392 20176.1%
$409,118
$448,921
$538,153
$554,700
$617,244
$660,334
$692,393
1433.7%
$13,386,072 $13,914,818 $14,748,542 $14,841,242 $16,250,687 $18,487,413 $21,514,449
2750.2%
$147
$144
$142
$135
$139
$145
$159
193.7%
*Amounts remitted to local units after deduction of administrative expenses by the State Tax Commission.
Source: Utah Foundation, Statistical Review of Government in Utah, and Utah State Tax Commission annual reports.
156
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
10Demographic and Employment Projections
The Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) produces the official population
and employment projections for the state of Utah, its 29 counties, and the multicounty
administrative regions. Population projections include births, deaths, and net migration, as well
as breakdowns by age and sex. Employment projections include employment by industry and
location quotients. The 2005 employment figures do not coincide with the DWS nonagricultural
employment numbers because the GOPB uses a different accounting method. The GOPB
figures include agricultural employment, proprietors employment (the self-employed), and home
workers, whereas the DWS looks only at wage and salary employment based on establishment
payrolls. For example, in 2005 in Washington County, the GOPB reported total employment of
62,328 whereas the DWS reported total nonagricultural employment of 47,247. The most recent
GOPB projections are the 2008 Baseline.
For the current study, BEBR aggregated the GOPB’s age-based population projections into
three groups: ages 0–17 years (youth), 18–64 years (working age), and 65+ years (retirement age).
We include values for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020; the amount and percent of change
from 2000 to 2020; and each age group’s share of total population in 2000 and in 2020.
Employment projections to 2020 are by broad NAICS sector and cover the years 2005, 2010,
2015, and 2020.24 As with the population projections, we include the amount and percent of
change in each sector from 2000 to 2020; and each sector’s share of total employment in 2000
and in 2020.
Southwest Region
The GOPB projects that the southwest region will gain nearly 230,000 people from 2000 to
2020, a 161.9 percent increase (Table 10.1). All age groups are predicted to more than double,
with the working-age population increasing 186.2 percent (143,120 potential workers), the youth
population increasing 143.0 percent (63,315 children), and the retirement-age population
growing 112.5 percent (23,505 potential retirees). Because of its more rapid growth rate, the
working-age population is expected to increase its share of the total population from 54.1
percent in 2000 to 59.1 percent in 2020. The other two groups will lose population share.
Washington County is responsible for more than 80 percent of the region’s growth over the
period. The next largest contributor is Iron County, which is expected to contribute 14.9 percent
of the region’s growth. Garfield County, projected to grow by only 1,080 persons, accounts for
only 0.5 percent of regional growth.
Total employment in the southwest region is projected to more than double from 2005 to 2020,
adding 111,026 jobs. The fastest-growing sectors are expected to be education and health
services (up 179.9 percent), professional and business services (up 134.4 percent), and
government (up 120.1 percent). Financial activity, leisure and hospitality, construction, other
services, and information jobs are all expected to more than double. Only the natural resources
and mining sector is projected to lose jobs, declining by 15.1 percent; and in fact it is projected
to shrink in every county in the region. Those industries adding the most jobs are projected to
be trade, transportation, and utilities, with 18,883 new jobs; education and health services, with
18,310 new jobs; and government, with 15,122 new jobs. In 2005, the main sources of
24
Employment figures for 2000 are not available in a NAICS-consistent format.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
157
employment were trade, transportation, and utilities, providing 19.6 percent of all jobs;
government, with 13.0 percent; leisure and hospitality, with 12.2 percent; construction with 11.3
percent; and education and health services with 10.5 percent of total employment. By 2020,
trade, transportation, and utilities is expected to remain the largest employment sector, although
its share is projected to fall to 18.2 percent. Education and health services is projected to grow
into the second-largest employment sector, with 13.7 percent of total employment, followed
closely by government with 13.4 percent. Leisure and hospitality, unchanged at 12.2 percent, and
construction, at 11.4 percent, round out the top five.
Table 10.1
Southwest GOPB Projections, 2000–2020
Population
Age Group
0–17
18–64
65+
Total
Area
Beaver
Garfield
Iron
Kane
Washington
Southwest
2000–2020
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020 Amount Percent‡
44,265 52,763 65,853 85,063 107,580 63,315 143.0%
76,856 106,093 139,435 176,559 219,976 143,120 186.2%
20,885 26,923 32,050 37,856 44,390 23,505 112.5%
142,006 185,779 237,338 299,478 371,946 229,940 161.9%
6,023
6,341
6,674
7,691
9,178
3,155
4,763
4,703
5,092
5,412
5,843
1,080
34,079 41,397 50,601 59,212 68,315 34,236
6,037
6,211
6,893
7,839
8,746
2,709
91,104 127,127 168,078 219,324 279,864 188,760
142,006 185,779 237,338 299,478 371,946 229,940
Shares
2000 2020
31.2% 28.9%
54.1% 59.1%
14.7% 11.9%
100% 100%
1.4%
4.2% 2.5%
0.5%
3.4% 1.6%
14.9% 24.0% 18.4%
1.2%
4.3% 2.4%
82.1% 64.2% 75.2%
100% 100% 100%
‡ Figures in the 2000–2020 Percent column for the counties represent each county’s contribution to the region’s growth.
Employment
NAICS Sector
Construction
Manufacturing
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
Total
2005–2020
2005
2010
2015
2020 Amount Percent
2,968
2,757
2,623
2,520
–448 –15.1%
10,945 15,036 19,344 23,577 12,632 115.4%
5,026
5,933
7,401
8,908
3,882
77.2%
18,922 25,683 32,169 37,805 18,883
99.8%
1,355
1,804
2,299
2,753
1,398 103.2%
8,671 11,830 15,244 18,762 10,091 116.4%
8,343 11,738 15,604 19,552 11,209 134.4%
10,179 15,077 21,093 28,489 18,310 179.9%
11,776 16,399 20,765 25,387 13,611 115.6%
5,774
7,797
9,848 12,110
6,336 109.7%
12,590 16,929 22,511 27,712 15,122 120.1%
96,549 130,983 168,901 207,575 111,026 115.0%
Shares
2005 2020
3.1% 1.2%
11.3% 11.4%
5.2% 4.3%
19.6% 18.2%
1.4% 1.3%
9.0% 9.0%
8.6% 9.4%
10.5% 13.7%
12.2% 12.2%
6.0% 5.8%
13.0% 13.4%
100% 100%
Note: Shading indicates the age group’s, county’s, or sector’s share is projected to increase by 2020.
158
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Beaver County
From 2000 to 2020, the GOPB projects Beaver County’s total population will increase 52.4
percent, from 6,023 to 9,178 (Table 10.2). The largest relative increase will be in the retirementage population (65+ years old), which will grow by 65.3 percent or 541 potential retirees. The
working-age population (18–64 years old) is expected to grow nearly as fast, increasing 60.2
percent and adding 1,913 persons. The youth population (0–17 years old) is projected to grow
considerably slower, increasing by 34.8 percent with 701 additional children. As a result, their
share of Beaver County’s population is expected to decline from 33.5 percent in 2000 to 29.6
percent in 2020. The working-age and retirement-age shares are both projected to increase
slightly, from 52.7 to 55.5 percent and from 13.8 to 14.9 percent, respectively.
Table 10.2
Beaver County GOPB Projections, 2000–2020
Population
Age Group
0–17
18–64
65+
Total
2000
2,017
3,177
829
6,023
2005
2,064
3,488
789
6,341
2010
2,042
3,763
869
6,674
2015
2,308
4,278
1,105
7,691
2000–2020
2020 Amount Percent
2,718
701
34.8%
5,090
1,913
60.2%
1,370
541
65.3%
9,178
3,155
52.4%
Shares
2000 2020
33.5% 29.6%
52.7% 55.5%
13.8% 14.9%
100% 100%
2005–2020
2020 Amount Percent
571
–83 –12.7%
288
126
77.8%
130
55
73.3%
1,098
436
65.9%
0
0
0.0%
372
189 103.3%
194
87
81.3%
297
161 118.4%
672
354 111.3%
397
210 112.3%
1,285
590
84.9%
5,304
2,125
66.8%
Shares
2005 2020
20.6% 10.8%
5.1% 5.4%
2.4% 2.5%
20.8% 20.7%
0.0% 0.0%
5.8% 7.0%
3.4% 3.7%
4.3% 5.6%
10.0% 12.7%
5.9% 7.5%
21.9% 24.2%
100% 100%
Employment
NAICS Sector
Construction
Manufacturing
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
Total
2005
654
162
75
662
0
183
107
136
318
187
695
3,179
2010
625
182
80
756
0
221
124
169
403
232
788
3,580
2015
596
234
105
938
0
296
159
231
537
311
1,041
4,448
Note: Shading indicates the age group’s or sector’s share is projected to increase by 2020.
The GOPB projects total employment in Beaver County to grow 66.8 percent from 2005 to
2020, with 2,125 new jobs added. The three fastest-growing employment sectors are projected to
be education and health services (up 118.4 percent), other services (up 112.3 percent), and
leisure and hospitality (up 111.3 percent). The largest absolute gains are expected in government
employment (590); trade, transportation, and utilities (436); and leisure and hospitality (254).
Only the natural resources and mining sector is expected to lose jobs, with employment falling
12.7 percent. Most sectors are projected to see their shares of total employment increase slightly,
by up to 2.7 percentage points. Natural resources and mining’s share will nearly halve, and those
of manufacturing and trade, transportation, and utilities will essentially remain unchanged.
However, none of these changes are large enough to alter the economic structure of the county
significantly. The main sources of employment in 2020 will continue to be government (24.2
percent), trade, transportation, and utilities (20.7 percent), leisure and hospitality (12.7 percent),
and natural resources and mining (10.8 percent). The main change is the decline in the latter
sector’s share.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
159
Garfield County
Garfield County is projected to have the slowest growth of the five counties from 2000 to 2020
(Table 10.3). The GOPB expects total population to increase by less than one-quarter, from
4,763 to 5,843. This will be led by gains in the 18–64 age group, which is projected to have the
largest absolute increase, 733. Its share of Garfield’s population is projected to increase from
53.8 percent in 2000 to 56.4 percent in 2020. However, the retirement-age group is projected to
grow the fastest, gaining 52.8 percent or 355 potential retirees. Its share will consequently
increase from 14.1 percent of the population to 17.6 percent. The youth population is actually
expected to decline by eight children over the period, a half-percent decrease. Its share will fall
from 32.1 percent to 26.0 percent.
Table 10.3
Garfield County GOPB Projections, 2000–2020
Population
Age Group
0–17
18–64
65+
Total
2000
1,530
2,561
672
4,763
2005
1,341
2,659
703
4,703
2010
1,289
3,059
744
5,092
2015
1,363
3,168
881
5,412
2000–2020
2020 Amount Percent
1,522
–8
–0.5%
3,294
733
28.6%
1,027
355
52.8%
5,843
1,080
22.7%
Shares
2000 2020
32.1% 26.0%
53.8% 56.4%
14.1% 17.6%
100% 100%
2005–2020
2020 Amount Percent
357
–51 –12.5%
153
32
26.4%
131
51
63.8%
517
110
27.0%
101
19
23.2%
228
71
45.2%
195
68
53.5%
358
149
71.3%
1,327
373
39.1%
182
64
54.2%
737
149
25.3%
4,286
1,035
31.8%
Shares
2005 2020
12.5% 8.3%
3.7% 3.6%
2.5% 3.1%
12.5% 12.1%
2.5% 2.4%
4.8% 5.3%
3.9% 4.5%
6.4% 8.4%
29.3% 31.0%
3.6% 4.2%
18.1% 17.2%
100% 100%
Employment
NAICS Sector
Construction
Manufacturing
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
Total
2005
408
121
80
407
82
157
127
209
954
118
588
3,251
2010
396
135
95
479
93
191
159
269
1,168
147
644
3,776
2015
376
144
114
507
97
211
182
316
1,262
167
699
4,075
Employment growth is also projected to be low in Garfield County. From 2005 to 2020, the
GOPB expects the county to add 1,035 jobs, a 31.8 percent increase. The industries expected to
grow the fastest are education and health services (71.3 percent), manufacturing (63.8 percent),
and other services (54.2 percent) and professional and business services (53.5 percent). The
largest absolute employment gains are projected in leisure and hospitality (373 jobs), education
and health services and government (149 each), and trade, transportation, and utilities (110).
Employment in natural resources and mining is projected to decline by one-eighth, shedding 51
jobs. Because of this, natural resources and mining will go from being the third largest
employment sector in Garfield in 2005, tied with trade, transportation, and utilities at 12.5
percent of total employment, to the fifth largest in 2020, at 8.3 percent. The top two sectors
remain the same in both 2005 and 2020: leisure and hospitality, and government. Therefore, the
top employment sectors in 2020 are projected to be leisure and hospitality (31.0 percent),
government (17.2 percent), trade, transportation, and utilities (12.1 percent), and education and
health services (8.4 percent).
160
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Iron County
GOPB projections for Iron County show total population doubling, from 34,079 in 2000 to
68,315 in 2020 (Table 10.4), second only to Washington County in rate of growth. All three age
groups are predicted to grow by more than 90 percent. The 65-plus group shows the strongest
projected percentage gains (120.7 percent) while the working-age group will increase by “only”
95.5 percent but will experience the largest projected absolute increase (nearly 20,000). The
youth and retirement-age groups will both slightly increase their shares of total population
from2000 to 2020, from 31.2 to 31.8 percent and from 8.6 to 9.4 percent, respectively; the
working-age group’s share is projected to decline slightly, from 60.3 to 58.8 percent.
Table 10.4
Iron County GOPB Projections, 2000–2020
Population
Age Group
0–17
18–64
65+
Total
2000
10,617
20,547
2,915
34,079
2005
12,769
25,246
3,382
41,397
2010
15,950
30,551
4,100
50,601
2015
19,228
34,865
5,119
59,212
2000–2020
Shares
21,716 11,099 104.5% 31.2% 31.8%
40,166 19,619
95.5% 60.3% 58.8%
6,433
3,518 120.7% 8.6% 9.4%
68,315 34,236 100.5% 100% 100%
Employment
NAICS Sector
Construction
Manufacturing
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
Total
2005
830
1,705
1,703
3,778
180
1,923
1,880
1,953
2,250
1,207
4,249
21,658
2010
822
2,108
1,855
4,850
220
2,511
2,423
2,698
3,042
1,569
5,372
27,470
2015
769
2,509
2,131
5,647
256
3,061
2,914
3,464
3,677
1,879
6,686
32,993
2005–2020
2020 Amount Percent
736
–94 –11.3%
2,828
1,123
65.9%
2,415
712
41.8%
6,128
2,350
62.2%
280
100
55.6%
3,507
1,584
82.4%
3,289
1,409
74.9%
4,225
2,272 116.3%
4,208
1,958
87.0%
2,155
948
78.5%
7,620
3,371
79.3%
37,391 15,733
72.6%
Shares
2005 2020
3.8% 2.0%
7.9% 7.6%
7.9% 6.5%
17.4% 16.4%
0.8% 0.7%
8.9% 9.4%
8.7% 8.8%
9.0% 11.3%
10.4% 11.3%
5.6% 5.8%
19.6% 20.4%
100% 100%
Employment projections for Iron County predict growth in all sectors except natural resources
and mining, which is expected to lose 94 jobs or 11.3 percent. Total employment is projected to
increase by more than 15,000 jobs, or 72.6 percent, from 2005 to 2020. The fastest growing
sectors are expected to be education and health services (116.3 percent), leisure and hospitality
(87.0 percent), financial activity (82.4 percent), government (79.3 percent), and other services
(78.5 percent). The largest absolute gains are projected in government (3,371 jobs), trade,
transportation, and utilities (2,350), education and health services (2,272), and leisure and
hospitality (1,958). The top four industries by employment share in 2005 were government (19.6
percent), trade, transportation, and utilities (17.4 percent), leisure and hospitality (10.4 percent),
and education and health services (9.0 percent). By 2020 the top two are expected to remain the
same, though their shares will have changed somewhat. Government is expected to increase its
share to 20.4 percent of total employment, and trade, transportation, and utilities will have
declined to 16.4 percent. Education and health services, and leisure and hospitality will be tied
for third at 11.3 percent of total employment each, though there is projected to be 13 more jobs
in the former sector than in the latter.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
161
Kane County
The GOPB projects total population growth of 44.9 percent in Kane County between 2000 and
2020, an increase of 2,709 persons (Table 10.5). Most of this gain, 1,664 persons, is expected to
occur in the 18–64 age group. This represents growth of 51.3 percent for the group. The 65-plus
group is projected to increase by 456 persons, a 44.9 percent gain, while the under-18 population
is expected to grow 33.2 percent, or by 589 persons. As a result of these dynamics, the youth
population’s share of total population in Kane is projected to decline from 29.4 percent in 2000
to 27.0 percent in 2020, with a corresponding increase in the working-age share from 53.8
percent to 56.1 percent; the retirement-age population’s share will remain at 16.8 percent.
Table 10.5
Kane County GOPB Projections, 2000–2020
Population
Age Group
0–17
18–64
65+
Total
2000
1,775
3,246
1,016
6,037
2005
1,603
3,499
1,109
6,211
2010
1,676
4,018
1,199
6,893
2015
2,005
4,523
1,311
7,839
2000–2020
2020 Amount Percent
2,364
589
33.2%
4,910
1,664
51.3%
1,472
456
44.9%
8,746
2,709
44.9%
Shares
2000 2020
29.4% 27.0%
53.8% 56.1%
16.8% 16.8%
100% 100%
2005–2020
2020 Amount Percent
174
–18
–9.4%
362
97
36.6%
277
80
40.6%
833
220
35.9%
41
13
46.4%
357
118
49.4%
220
81
58.3%
183
82
81.2%
1,709
630
58.4%
847
305
56.3%
1,025
304
42.2%
6,028
1,912
46.5%
Shares
2005 2020
4.7% 2.9%
6.4% 6.0%
4.8% 4.6%
14.9% 13.8%
0.7% 0.7%
5.8% 5.9%
3.4% 3.6%
2.5% 3.0%
26.2% 28.4%
13.2% 14.1%
17.5% 17.0%
100% 100%
Employment
NAICS Sector
Construction
Manufacturing
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
Total
2005
192
265
197
613
28
239
139
101
1,079
542
721
4,116
2010
196
310
221
748
35
293
175
136
1,384
679
834
5,011
2015
185
338
252
802
39
330
202
161
1,567
767
947
5,590
Employment in Kane County is projected to grow at a similar pace to population, 46.5 percent
from 2005 to 2020. The fastest-growing sectors are expected to be education and health services
(up 81.2 percent), leisure and hospitality (58.4 percent), professional and business services (58.3
percent), and other services (56.3 percent). The industries projected to add the most jobs by
2020 are leisure and hospitality (630), other services (305), government (304), and trade,
transportation, and utilities (220). The natural resources and mining sector is projected to lose
jobs, declining by 9.4 percent. The overall structure of the economy is not expected to change
drastically over the period. The projected top two industries in 2020 are the same as those in
2005: leisure and hospitality, which is projected to increase from 26.2 percent of total
employment to 28.4 percent, and government, projected to decline slightly from 17.5 percent to
17.0 percent. The third and fourth top employment sectors in 2005—trade, transportation, and
utilities with 14.9 percent and other services with 13.2 percent—are projected to trade places by
2020 to 13.8 percent and 14.1 percent, respectively.
162
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Washington County
Finally, the GOPB projects Washington County’s population to triple from 2000 to 2020,
growing by 188,760 persons from 91,104 to 279,864 (Table 10.6). The working-age population is
expected to increase 251.9 percent from 47,325 to 166,516; the youth population is projected to
add 50,934 children, a 179.8 percent gain; and the retirement-age population is projected to grow
by18,635, or 120.6 percent. Because of these growth differentials, the working-age population’s
share of the total population is expected to increase from 51.9% to 59.5%, while the 0–17 and
65+ age groups’ shares fall by a few points to 28.3 percent and 12.2 percent, respectively.
Table 10.6
Washington County GOPB Projections, 2000–2020
Population
Age Group
0–17
18–64
65+
Total
2000
2005
2010
28,326 34,986 44,896
47,325 71,201 98,044
15,453 20,940 25,138
91,104 127,127 168,078
2015
60,159
129,725
29,440
219,324
2000–2020
2020
Amount Percent
79,260 50,934 179.8%
166,516 119,191 251.9%
34,088 18,635 120.6%
279,864 188,760 207.2%
Shares
2000 2020
31.1% 28.3%
51.9% 59.5%
17.0% 12.2%
100% 100%
2005–2020
2020
Amount Percent
682
–202 –22.9%
19,946 11,254 129.5%
5,955
2,984 100.4%
29,229 15,767 117.1%
2,331
1,266 118.9%
14,298
8,129 131.8%
15,654
9,564 157.0%
23,426 15,646 201.1%
17,471 10,296 143.5%
8,529
4,809 129.3%
17,045 10,708 169.0%
154,566 90,221 140.2%
Shares
2005 2020
1.4% 0.4%
13.5% 12.9%
4.6% 3.9%
20.9% 18.9%
1.7% 1.5%
9.6% 9.3%
9.5% 10.1%
12.1% 15.2%
11.2% 11.3%
5.8% 5.5%
9.8% 11.0%
100% 100%
Employment
NAICS Sector
Construction
Manufacturing
Information
Financial Activity
Other Services
Government
Total
2005
884
8,692
2,971
13,462
1,065
6,169
6,090
7,780
7,175
3,720
6,337
64,345
2010
718
12,301
3,682
18,850
1,456
8,614
8,857
11,805
10,402
5,170
9,291
91,146
2015
697
16,119
4,799
24,275
1,907
11,346
12,147
16,921
13,722
6,724
13,138
121,795
GOPB employment projections for Washington County show the addition of more than 90,000
jobs from 2005 to 2020, a 140.2 percent increase. The fastest-growing sectors are projected to be
education and health services (201.1 percent increase), government (169.0 percent), professional
and business services (157.0 percent), and leisure and hospitality (143.5 percent). Those sectors
expected to add the most jobs by 2020 include trade, transportation, and utilities (15,767),
education and health services (15,646 jobs), construction (11,254), government (10,708), and
leisure and hospitality (10,296). Four sectors are expected to increase their employment shares
by 2020, professional and business services, education and health services, leisure and
hospitality, and government. All other industries’ shares are projected to decline slightly, but by
no more than two percentage points. In 2005, trade, transportation, and utilities accounted for
about one-fifth (20.9 percent) of all jobs, construction claimed 13.5 percent, education and
health services 12.1 percent, and leisure and hospitality 11.2 percent. By 2020 trade,
transportation, and utilities is projected to still be the largest employment sector, though its share
will have declined to 18.9 percent; education and health services will be the second largest
industry, with 15.2 percent of total employment; construction will be third at 12.9 percent; and
leisure and hospitality, government, and professional and business services will each account for
about one-tenth of total employment.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
163
11
Broader Regional Ties
Economic Areas
The five-county region of southwestern Utah is defined administratively rather than
economically. That is, the member counties do not necessarily function as a single economic
region. In order to better analyze the regional distribution of economic activity in the United
States, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has divided the country into “economic areas.”
It defines these areas, using commuting flows and newspaper readership, as “the relevant
regional markets surrounding metropolitan or micropolitan statistical areas.… These economic
areas represent the relevant regional markets for labor, products, and information.”25 The BEA
is the lead federal agency responsible for economic analysis in general and for regional analysis in
particular.
In the 1969 delineation of BEA economic areas all five southwestern counties were in fact part
of the Las Vegas economic area, which also included Clark, Esmeralda, Lincoln, and Nye
counties in Nevada. However, by the 1995 redefinition, Kane County’s orientation had shifted
south, and it joined San Juan County and Arizona’s Coconino, Navajo, and Yavapai counties in
the new Flagstaff economic area. The other counties remained in the Las Vegas economic area,
which had expanded to include Piute County, Mineral County, Nevada, and Mohave County,
Arizona. In the BEA’s 2004 redefinition of economic areas, only Beaver, Iron, and Washington
remained in the Las Vegas economic area. Kane was still part of the Flagstaff economic area,
while Garfield County (and Piute) had shifted its economic focus north to become part of the
Salt Lake City–Ogden–Clearfield economic area. By this time, too, Washington County had
grown into a metropolitan statistical area in its own right.
Thus, over the study period we see a differentiation and broadening of the Southwest
(administrative) region’s economic ties from a strictly westward orientation to a wider focus that
looks south and north as well as west. However, in terms of sheer size, the region has
maintained and developed its southwesterly ties, particularly with Las Vegas.
Washington County remains closely tied to Las Vegas, sending more than 30 percent of its outcommuters in 2000 to Clark County, though this was down from 40 percent in 1990. However,
one-fifth of in-commuters to Washington in 2000 came from Mohave County, Arizona, about
double the share (and more than four times the numbers) in 1990. Iron County’s main worker
exchanges are with Washington County, which supplied half of Iron’s in-commuters in 2000 and
received more than half of its out-commuters. Beaver County has a similar exchange with Iron,
sending and receiving more than half of its out- and in-commuters in 2000 to and from Iron.
Although the share of out-commuters from Kane County who worked in Coconino County,
Arizona, declined from 58.0 percent in 1990 to 51.1 percent in 2000, the number actually
increased slightly, from 364 to 385. Those commuting into Kane from Coconino increased from
108 to 197, and from 49.3 percent to 52.5 percent of in-commuters. Washington County claimed
Johnson, Kenneth P., and John R. Kort. “2004 Redefinition of the BEA Economic Areas.” Survey of Current
Business, November 2004: 68–75. See also: Regional Economic Analysis Division. “The BEA Economic Areas:
Structural Changes and Growth, 1950–73,” Survey of Current Business, November 1975 at 14: “Each economic area
consists of a standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA), or similar area that serves as a center of trade, and the
surrounding counties that are economically related to the center. To the extent possible, each area includes the
place-of-work and place-of-residence of its labor force….”
25
164
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
about 10 percent each of Kane’s in- and out-commuters in 2000. Garfield County’s main
commuting flows in 2000 were to San Juan County (one-quarter of all out-commuters) and from
Piute County (over one-fifth of in-commuters). Iron was also a significant destination, receiving
more than one-fifth of out-commuters, while Kane was close behind Piute and supplied nearly
one-fifth of in-commuters.
Rural Typologies
In 1973, the BEA assigned the Las Vegas economic area to the “other” industrial group, defined
as “areas that provided unusually large amounts of services to nonresident consumers”—in this
case, recreation. More than 30 years later recreation is still important to the region, and will likely
continue to be, given Las Vegas’ prominence as a gambling and entertainment destination and
the presence of national and state parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, and other scenic
public lands. In fact, these natural amenities are and have been an important driver of economic
development, particularly in the five-county region of Utah.26
AGTP79R
MFGTP79R
MINTP79R
GVTTP79R
FEDTP79
RETTP79
POVTP79
UNCL79
Table 11.1
1979 Rural Typology Codes
for the Southwestern
Counties
RURALURB
Since 1979, the Economic Research Service of the USDA
has classified nonmetropolitan (and metropolitan,
beginning in 2004) counties into various economic and
policy types. The economic types are based on the
concept of “base” industries, i.e. those that produce
goods and services for export outside the local economy.
They are defined by looking at each industry’s share of
labor and proprietors’ earnings in a given county. The
economic types are mutually exclusive. The policy types
are not mutually exclusive and describe such features as
federal land ownership, share of in-migrants aged 60 and
older, education and poverty levels, and other social
factors.
Beaver
9
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Garfield
9
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Iron
7
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Kane
9
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
Washington
7
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
County
Source: USDA Economic Research Service.
In 1979 there was no distinction between economic and policy typologies. The categories were
farming-dependent, manufacturing-dependent, mining-dependent, government-dependent,
federal lands, retirement counties, poverty counties, and unclassified counties.27 All five counties
in the southwest were classified as federal lands: nonmetropolitan counties in which federal land
was one-third or more of total land area in 1977 (Table 11.1). In fact, Iron County has the lowest
See McGranahan, David. “Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change.” Agricultural Economic Report
No. AER781, October 1999, USDA Economic Research Service; available at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER781/, accessed November 13, 2007.
27
These were defined as follows: farming-dependent (AGTP79R)—county in which farming contributed a weighted
annual average of 20 percent or more to total labor and proprietor income from 1975 to 1979; manufacturingdependent (MFGTP79R)—county in which manufacturing contributed 30 percent or more to total labor and
proprietor income in 1979; mining-dependent (MINTP79R)—county in which mining contributed 20 percent or more
to total labor and proprietor income in 1979; government-dependent (GVTTP79R)—county in which local, state, and
federal payrolls contributed 25 percent or more to total labor and proprietor income in 1979; federal lands
(FEDTP79)—county in which federal land was 33 percent or more of total land area in 1977; retirement counties
(RETTP79)—county with 15 percent or more net in-migration of people aged 60+ from 1970–80; poverty counties
(POVTP79)—county ranking in the lowest per capita income quintile in 1950, 1959, 1969, and 1979; and unclassified
counties (UNCL79)—county which fell into none of the above county types in 1979. Source: Documentation tab in
the types83.xls file from the USDA Economic Research Service; available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/
TypologyCodes/1979_1986/types83.xls, accessed January 4, 2008.
26
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
165
share of federally owned land at 57.5 percent; Garfield is the highest with 89.6 percent. Iron,
Kane, and Washington were also considered retirement counties, where 15 percent or more of
net in-migration from 1970 to 1980 was people aged 60 years and older. On the rural-urban
continuum, where 0 is most urban and 9 is most rural, all five counties were classified as
nonmetropolitan (scores of 4 or higher). Beaver, Garfield, and Kane were coded as 9: completely
rural, with no places having a population of 2,500 or more, and not adjacent to a metropolitan
area. Iron and Washington were classified as 7: having an urban population of 2,500 to 19,999
and not adjacent to a metropolitan area.
RURALURB
By 1989, Washington had grown to a 4 on the rural-urban continuum: it had an urban
population of 20,000 or more and was adjacent to a metropolitan area (Las Vegas too had
grown). Iron was still a 7, though Kane
had grown to a 7 as well. Beaver and
Table 11.2
Garfield were still completely rural (Table
1989 Rural Typology Codes for the
11.2). The typology now included six
Southwestern Counties
nonoverlapping economic types and five
overlapping policy types. The economic
Economic Types
Policy Types
types were farming-dependent, miningCounty
FM MI MF GV TS NS RT FL CM PV TP
dependent, manufacturing-dependent,
Beaver
9 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0
0 0
government-dependent, servicesGarfield
9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0
0 0
dependent, and nonspecialized; the policy
Iron
7 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
0
0 0
types were retirement destination, federal
Kane
7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
0
0 0
lands, commuting, persistent poverty, and
Washington
4 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
0
0 0
transfers-dependent.28
Among the economic types, Beaver County was classified as farming-dependent, earning 20
percent or more of its labor and proprietor’s income from farming; Garfield and Iron were
considered government-dependent, with government activities contributing 25 percent or more
of income; and Kane and Washington were services-dependent, where service activities provided
50 percent or more of labor and proprietors’ income. Service activities are defined to include
retail trade and finance, insurance, and real estate in addition to the service sector. In both Kane
and Washington, BEA data show that services and retail trade were the main earnings sources,
Here are their definitions. Economic Types: farming-dependent (FM)—farming contributed a weighted annual
average of 20 percent or more labor and proprietor income over the three years 1987–89; mining-dependent (MI)—
mining contributed a weighted annual average of 15 percent or more labor and proprietor income over the three
years 1987–89; manufacturing-dependent (MF)—manufacturing contributed a weighted annual average of 30
percent or more labor and proprietor income over the three years 1987–89; government-dependent (GV)—
government activities contributed a weighted annual average of 25 percent or more labor and proprietor income
over the three years 1987–89; services-dependent (TS)—service activities contributed a weighted annual average of
50 percent or more labor and proprietor income over the three years 1987–89; and nonspecialized (NS)—counties
not classified as a specialized economic type over the three years 1987–89. Policy Types: retirement destination
(RT)—the population aged 60 years and over in 1990 increased by 15 percent or more from 1980–90 through inmigration; federal lands (FL)—federally owned lands made up 30 percent or more of a county’s land area in the year
1987; commuting (CM)—workers aged 16 years and over commuting to jobs outside their county of residence were
40 percent or more of all the county’s workers in 1990; persistent poverty (PV)—persons with poverty-level income
in the preceding year were 20 percent or more of total population in each of four years, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990;
and transfers-dependent (TP)—income from transfer payments (federal, state, and local) contributed a weighted
annual average of 25 percent or more of total personal income over the three years 1987–89. Source:
Documentation tab in the typology89.xls file from the USDA Economic Research Service; available at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/TypologyCodes/1989/typology89.xls, accessed January 4, 2008.
28
166
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
while finance, insurance and real estate made a relatively minor contribution. Among policy
types, all counties were, of course, still federal lands counties and Beaver had joined the ranks of
retirement-destination counties.
RETIRE
REC
POPLOSS
PERPOV
LOWEMP
LOWEDUC
HOUSE
NONSP
SERV
FSGOV
MANF
MINE
FARM
URBINF
The most recent rural typology was released in 2004. It includes the same six economic types,
with slightly lower earnings thresholds for most categories, but uses a new collection of policy
types. These seven nonoverlapping classifications are housing stress, low education, low
employment, persistent poverty, population loss, nonmetro recreation, and retirement
destination.29 The 2004 typology also replaced the rural-urban continuum with an urban
influence code on a scale of 1 to 12, with 1 being “in a large metro area of 1+ million residents”
and 12 being “noncore not adjacent to
Table 11.3
metro or micro area and does not contain
2004
Rural
Typology
Codes for the
a town of at least 2,500 residents.” Under
Southwestern
Counties
this scheme, Washington County has
grown to a small metropolitan area of less
Economic Types
Policy Types
than 1 million residents, Iron County is
classified as a micropolitan area adjacent
County
to a small metro area, Kane is noncore
Beaver
10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
adjacent to a small metro area and
Garfield
10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
contains a town of at least 2,500
Iron
5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
residents, and Beaver and Garfield are
Kane
6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
both classified as noncore adjacent to a
Washington
2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
micropolitan area and not containing a
town of at least 2,500 residents (Table
11.3). The micropolitan area designation is relatively new and is defined to be one or more
counties that contain an urban core of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population, where
“core” refers to an area containing a “substantial population nucleus.”
There was no change in the economic typologies of the five counties from their 1989
classification; Beaver is still considered farming-dependent, Garfield and Iron are governmentdependent; and Kane and Washington are services-dependent. Among policy types, all are
considered recreation counties, based on the share of employment or earnings in recreationrelated industries, the share of seasonal or occasional-use housing units, and per capita receipts
from motels and hotels. Beaver is no longer considered a retirement destination, though Iron,
Kane, and Washington counties continue to receive significant numbers of in-migrants aged 60
and older. Iron and Washington are considered housing stressed because over 30 percent of
They are defined as follows: housing stress (HOUSE)—30 percent or more of households had one or more of
these housing conditions in 2000: lacked complete plumbing, lacked complete kitchen, paid 30 percent or more of
income for owner costs or rent, or had more than one person per room; low education (LOWEDUC)—25 percent or
more of residents 25–64 years old had neither a high school diploma nor a GED in 2000; low employment
(LOWEMP)—less than 65 percent of residents 21–64 years old were employed in 2000; persistent poverty
(PERPOV)—20 percent or more of residents were poor as measured by each of the last four censuses, 1970, 1980,
1990, and 2000; population loss (POPLOSS)—the number of residents declined both between the 1980 and 1990
censuses and between the 1990 and 2000 censuses; nonmetro recreation (REC)—classified using a combination of
factors, including share of employment or share of earnings in recreation-related industries in 1999, share of
seasonal or occasional use housing units in 2000, and per-capita receipts from motels and hotels in 1997; and
retirement destination (RETIRE)—the number of residents 60 and older grew by 15 percent or more between 1990
and 2000 due to in-migration. Source: “Measuring Rurality: 2004 County Typology Codes,” USDA ERS Briefing
Room, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/Typology/, accessed January 4, 2008.
29
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
167
renter households pay 30 percent or more of their income for rent In Iron, 36.5 percent of
renting households pay 30 percent or more, in Washington 38.3 percent of renting households
do. This stress is a result of rapid population growth and the rising cost of housing in these
micropolitan and metropolitan counties.
Migration
Migration is measured in gross and net flows. Gross inflows measure the number of people who
move into a given area while gross outflows measure the number who leave a given area. Net
migration is then gross inflows less gross outflows, and is generally given as net in-migration,
where a negative number indicates a net loss of population due to out-migration.
Given the westward orientation of at least three of the counties in the southwest region, BEBR
looked at migration flows by county into and out of the region. The county population estimates
produced by the Utah Population Estimates Committee (UPEC) include components of
population change: births and deaths based on vital records, and net migration estimated by
UPEC. The IRS also publishes county-to-county gross migration flows based on tax returns.
From 1951 through 1973, both Beaver and Garfield counties saw mostly net out-migration
(Figures 11.1 and 11.2). Since then, migration has been fairly volatile, with significant swings
from net in-migration to net out-migration. However, since 1970, both counties experienced net
inflows of 521 and 144 people, respectively. Kane County migration patterns have been
somewhat less volatile (Figure 11.3), exhibiting net out-migration from 1958 through 1969 and
net in-migration over the periods 1970–78, 1982–86, and 1991–97. The current century saw net
out-migration from 2000 through 2003 and net in-migration in 2004 through 2006. Kane has
received a net influx of 2,097 people since 1970, although its total population is similar to that of
Beaver County at about 6,300 in 2006. From 1950 through 1965 Iron County saw net outmigration, except for 1960 and ’61 (Figure 11.4). Then, except for losses in 1973 and 1979, there
was net in-migration into the county from 1966 through 1984. The latter part of the ’80s saw net
out-migration, but since 1990 there have been net inflows into the county. Since 1970, the
county gained 16,253 net migrants. Washington County has experienced the longest period of
net in-migration of the five counties (Figure 11.5). After consistent net out-migration from 1950
through 1964, interrupted only in 1955, ’56, and ’59, the county has seen constant and growing
Figure 11.1
Beaver County Components of Population
Change, 1950–2007
Figure 11.2
Garfield County Components of Population
Change, 1950–2007
200
400
Net In-Migration
300
150
Natural Increase
100
200
50
100
0
-50
0
-100
-100
-150
-200
Net In-Migration
-200
-300
Natural Increase
-250
-400
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
-300
1950
2000
168
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Figure 11.3
Kane County Components of Population
Change, 1950–2007
400
Figure 11.4
Iron County Components of Population Change,
1950–2007
2,000
Net In-Migration
Net In-Migration
Natural Increase
300
Natural Increase
1,500
200
1,000
100
500
0
0
-100
-500
-200
-300
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
-1,000
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
net in-migration. The increase has been dramatic, from 33 people in 1965 to more than 8,300 in
2005 and over 6,000 in 2006. From 1970 through 2006 Washington netted 95,293 in-migrants,
about 70 percent of its 2006 population.
While the UPEC data show which counties are gaining and which losing population through net
migration flows, they don’t show where in-migrants are coming from and where out-migrants
go, that is, gross flows. The IRS county-to-county migration data are available for counties of
origin with 10 or more returns in the destination county in the following year. For example, if 10
or more tax returns filed in Washington County in 2005 were from individuals or households
whose addresses had been in Clark County in 2004, then they will appear as migrants from Clark
County to Washington County. The IRS data report both the number of returns, which
approximates the number of households, and the number of personal exemptions, an
approximation of the population.
Migration figures from the IRS for the five-county region were analyzed back to 1989 (Tables
11.4a and 11.4b). Note that because they are based on tax returns, they likely undercount the
actual number of migrants. Those who do not file returns—those with low incomes or who are
paid under the table, illegal immigrants, etc.—do not appear in the data.
Migration in the five-county region pretty
closely follows a gravity model: migrational
flows are directly proportional to location
population and inversely proportional to
distance. The larger and more accessible
counties, i.e., Washington and Iron, attract more
in-migrants than the smaller and more remote
counties (Beaver, Garfield, Kane). Likewise,
Clark County, Nevada, home of Las Vegas, and
Salt Lake County are both important migration
sources and destinations. Tables a and b show
IRS migration figures for the five counties by
major sources and destinations.
Figure 11.5
Washington County Components of Population
Change, 1950–2007
9,000
Net In-Migration
8,000
Natural Increase
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
169
The main migrational flows into and out of Beaver, Garfield, and Kane counties have been with
Iron and Washington counties (Tables 11.5–11.7). These two counties combined were the
source of, on average, 18 percent of Beaver’s in-migrants and the destination of 24 percent of its
out-migrants over the period 1989 to 2005. Garfield received an average of 11 percent of its inmigrants from Iron and Washington and sent 24 percent of its out-migrants there. An average of
14 percent of Kane County’s in-migrants came from Iron and Washington and one-quarter of its
out-migrants moved to those two counties, combined.
Table 11.4a
In-Migration to the Southwest Region by Source, 1989–2005
(number of exemptions)
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 Change
Arizona
141
87
417
277
443
452
336
504
479
539
422
491
529
473
508
642
861
510.7%
Share
2.3% 1.4% 5.9% 3.8% 5.1% 4.4% 3.2% 5.2% 5.1% 5.6% 4.5% 5.1% 5.3% 4.2% 4.5% 5.2% 5.5%
to Washington
141
87
294
193
378
352
280
381
360
401
324
415
412
380
433
495
710
403.5%
to Iron
85
33
31
47
54
27
57
59
34
70
43
34
79
115
35.3%
to Kane
38
51
34
53
56
69
92
54
39
42
47
50
41
68
36
–5.4%
to Garfield
27
Southern California
155
155
686
923 1,205 1,626 1,150
716
746
575
573
559
624
601
792 1,182 2,054 1225.2%
Share
2.5% 2.5% 9.7% 12.8% 13.8% 15.6% 10.9% 7.3% 7.9% 6.0% 6.1% 5.8% 6.2% 5.4% 7.0% 9.6% 13.1%
to Washington
155
155
507
717
887 1,164
806
561
564
394
431
375
444
479
616
920 1,613
940.6%
to Iron
179
184
318
462
344
155
182
181
142
184
158
122
176
262
441
146.4%
to Kane
22
to Garfield
22
Clark County, NV
427
375
630
700
823
827
857
827
790
721
714
720
851
914
921
931 1,898
344.5%
Share
6.9% 6.0% 8.9% 9.7% 9.4% 8.0% 8.1% 8.5% 8.4% 7.5% 7.6% 7.5% 8.5% 8.1% 8.2% 7.5% 12.1%
to Washington
258
261
466
492
478
563
541
541
496
435
448
435
497
580
670
593 1,263
389.5%
to Iron
169
114
136
144
263
217
242
229
211
168
211
227
280
286
226
272
497
194.1%
to Kane
28
29
34
25
41
31
30
54
28
29
27
23
36
47
67.9%
to Garfield
20
33
20
40
19
25
38
90.0%
to Beaver
35
28
22
26
33
24
27
29
28
25
30
53
51.4%
Wasatch Front
1,392 1,219 1,547 1,556 1,976 2,310 2,678 2,431 2,402 2,582 2,587 2,558 2,620 3,136 2,962 2,968 3,214
130.9%
Share
22.5% 19.6% 22.0% 21.5% 22.6% 22.2% 25.4% 24.9% 25.5% 26.8% 27.4% 26.5% 26.1% 27.9% 26.3% 24.0% 20.5%
to Washington
1,137
962 1,246 1,146 1,531 1,820 2,023 1,905 1,852 1,949 1,975 1,989 2,088 2,593 2,393 2,435 2,669
134.7%
from Davis
160
106
194
135
200
225
236
241
220
180
250
201
224
344
257
296
294
83.8%
from Salt Lake
553
481
673
623
843 1,099 1,135 1,069 1,081 1,158 1,023 1,128 1,201 1,524 1,350 1,202 1,328
140.1%
from Utah
349
286
303
293
405
333
525
463
400
494
591
552
512
566
605
717
797
128.4%
from Weber
75
89
76
95
83
163
127
132
151
117
111
108
151
159
181
220
250
233.3%
to Iron
255
257
301
297
383
383
529
419
453
505
465
455
420
476
479
482
514
101.6%
from Davis
38
35
25
31
36
35
64
31
36
49
53
61
39
42
53
39.5%
from Salt Lake
145
139
138
151
214
219
316
257
217
283
209
258
207
224
236
229
209
44.1%
from Utah
110
118
125
79
108
104
141
89
128
141
180
123
138
161
204
188
227
106.4%
from Weber
32
36
29
36
38
44
50
40
25
22
30
23
25
–21.9%
to Kane
26
25
35
51
48
29
50
37
70
62
47
25
33
31
19.2%
from Salt Lake
26
25
35
51
48
29
50
37
40
33
47
25
33
31
from Utah
30
29
to Garfield
28
33
35
23
23
31
28
22
30
18
–35.7%
from Salt Lake
28
33
35
23
23
31
28
22
18
from Utah
30
to Beaver
59
37
39
40
36
45
47
82
44
28
20
35
–40.7%
from Salt Lake
32
37
39
40
36
45
47
36
44
28
20
35
from Utah
27
46
Total In-Migration
6,196 6,235 7,043 7,227 8,727 10,390 10,544 9,746 9,418 9,628 9,433 9,647 10,022 11,223 11,253 12,375 15,640
152.4%
to Washington
3,897 3,878 4,576 4,700 5,712 7,135 6,746 6,327 6,138 6,031 6,114 6,251 6,675 7,555 7,962 8,584 11,093
184.7%
to Iron
1,557 1,532 1,625 1,625 2,132 2,206 2,606 2,188 2,194 2,443 2,343 2,359 2,439 2,597 2,412 2,783 3,423
119.8%
to Kane
272
375
318
367
393
460
528
516
454
507
386
433
314
457
372
435
480
76.5%
to Garfield
280
233
290
281
249
304
313
297
262
309
219
288
290
248
240
223
289
3.2%
to Beaver
190
217
234
254
241
285
351
418
370
338
371
316
304
366
267
350
355
86.8%
Source: IRS migration data based on tax returns, from Economy.com.
170
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 11.4b
Out-Migration from the Southwest Region by Destination, 1989–2005
Arizona
Share
from Washington
from Iron
from Kane
Southern California
Share
from Washington
from Iron
Clark County, NV
Share
from Washington
from Iron
from Kane
from Garfield
from Beaver
Wasatch Front
Share
from Washington
to Davis
to Salt Lake
to Utah
to Weber
from Iron
to Davis
to Salt Lake
to Utah
to Weber
from Kane
to Salt Lake
to Utah
from Garfield
to Salt Lake
to Utah
from Beaver
to Salt Lake
to Utah
Total Out-Migration
from Washington
from Iron
from Kane
from Garfield
from Beaver
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
209
4.0%
123
168
3.2%
168
210
4.2%
176
243
4.8%
195
22
26
121
2.4%
101
20
449
8.9%
288
131
30
234
4.7%
188
16
30
89
1.8%
89
277
5.6%
196
25
56
53
1.1%
53
318
5.6%
222
59
37
84
1.5%
84
331
5.2%
270
86
34
61
216
158
125
222
4.2% 3.0% 2.5%
3.5%
167
130
95
179
49
28
30
43
587
746
528
369
519
479
532
11.3% 14.3% 10.6%
7.3% 10.5% 8.4% 8.3%
390
516
360
266
379
297
365
172
130
146
103
140
169
145
25
41
22
32
22
13
27
1,045 1,087 1,058 1,212 1,218 1,040 1,165 1,324
20.2% 20.9% 21.2% 24.1% 24.2% 21.0% 20.4% 20.6%
687
700
698
825
851
644
796
877
96
92
43
132
159
59
85
102
361
373
351
473
433
355
413
430
185
198
267
168
193
172
254
272
45
37
37
52
66
58
44
73
317
322
292
359
305
360
334
399
43
37
33
50
39
48
47
36
175
204
170
214
171
199
169
202
99
81
89
95
95
113
103
132
15
29
29
36
38
28
17
24
29
36
38
28
17
24
29
29
12
12
5,182
2,685
1,557
427
253
260
30
5,208
2,698
1,566
418
325
201
30
4,989
2,581
1,499
399
281
229
5,023
2,736
1,495
360
252
180
24
24
18
18
21
18
18
35
35
4,962
2,652
1,525
294
290
201
5,717
3,201
1,719
321
282
194
21
5,028
2,829
1,384
346
274
195
24
24
6,426
3,574
1,853
469
302
228
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 Change
402
439
457
489
521
491
556
702
637
5.6% 5.5% 5.6% 6.1% 6.0% 5.8% 6.3% 7.8% 6.9%
269
330
332
384
406
411
453
550
527
68
36
60
55
70
30
56
99
47
65
73
65
50
45
50
47
53
63
207
329
332
331
335
294
314
192
272
2.9% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 3.9% 3.5% 3.5% 2.1% 2.9%
169
269
252
259
248
175
247
171
202
38
60
80
72
87
119
67
21
70
685
853
840
783
753
733
885
899
786
9.5% 10.6% 10.4% 9.8% 8.7% 8.6% 10.0% 10.0% 8.5%
491
615
556
524
480
511
544
572
518
143
169
226
207
184
206
291
279
211
27
26
30
20
25
21
38
22
28
30
25
16
24
21
22
44
25
27
19
1,587 1,840 1,837 1,977 2,246 2,015 1,993 2,013 2,211
22.1% 22.9% 22.7% 24.7% 26.0% 23.7% 22.5% 22.3% 23.9%
1,124 1,302 1,214 1,347 1,503 1,361 1,405 1,394 1,526
137
136
166
134
156
197
164
155
214
539
693
604
635
717
617
680
706
726
360
372
382
478
535
435
453
408
474
88
101
62
100
95
112
108
125
112
413
463
491
520
608
603
495
514
626
35
70
58
68
57
65
31
48
51
251
218
254
240
271
295
242
274
286
127
142
159
181
238
220
186
171
251
33
20
31
42
23
36
21
38
29
54
31
62
28
23
20
39
29
54
31
31
28
23
20
17
31
22
23
19
22
22
23
23
49
20
23
19
22
22
23
23
30
20
19
27
27
78
57
51
47
36
27
27
33
31
28
19
36
45
26
23
28
7,190 8,022 8,091 8,002 8,640 8,508 8,853 9,013 9,259
4,138 4,843 4,658 4,748 5,008 4,872 5,153 5,210 5,617
1,999 2,103 2,345 2,269 2,484 2,530 2,649 2,670 2,595
530
423
465
387
420
408
393
396
414
244
274
276
259
348
330
304
343
317
279
379
347
339
380
368
354
394
316
Source: IRS migration data based on tax returns, from Economy.com.
All three counties have exchanged some population with Clark County, Nevada, as well,
averaging 7 to 10 percent of total migration in each direction. In-migration from Clark to Beaver
increased 51 percent between 1992 (the earliest available data) and 2005, while out-migration
from Beaver to Clark declined 30 percent between 1990 (the earliest available data) and 2005.
There was net in-migration from Clark to Beaver in 2005. In-migration to Garfield from Clark
increased by 90 percent between 1993 and 2005, while out-migration to Clark declined by half
between 1990 and 2002. In 2001, the latest year for which data were reported in both directions,
there was net out-migration from Garfield to Clark. Kane County’s exchanges with Clark have
increased in both directions. In-migration increased 68 percent between 1991 and 2005 and outmigration grew 52 percent between 1989 and 2005, with net in-migration from Clark County in
2005. Kane has also experienced significant flows from and to Coconino County, Arizona, with
an average of 11 percent of in-migrants coming from Coconino and 12 percent of out- migrants
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
171
204.5%
328.4%
113.6%
–26.8%
25.9%
21.0%
42.9%
33.9%
32.8%
22.7%
52.0%
–50.0%
–29.6%
111.6%
122.1%
122.9%
101.1%
156.2%
148.9%
97.5%
18.6%
63.4%
153.5%
34.5%
–31.0%
200.0%
78.7%
109.2%
66.7%
–3.0%
25.3%
21.5%
Table 11.5
Migration Flows into and out of Beaver County, 1989–2005
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Change
In-Migration to Beaver County from
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Share
Within Region
Share
Iron County
Washington County
Within Rest of State
Salt Lake County
Share
Total In-Migrants
190
217
234
Out-Migration from Beaver County to
Southern Nevada
27
Clark County
27
Share
13%
Within Region
30
28
Share
12% 14%
Iron County
28
Washington County
30
12
30
Salt Lake County
12
Share
5%
Utah County
30
Total Out-Migrants
260
201
229
Net Migrants
–70
16
5
35
35
14%
32
13%
32
28
28
12%
59
32
13%
254
37
37
15%
241
26
7%
26
63
32%
34
29
21
180
74
22
22
8%
21
195
46
39
39
14%
285
40
40
11%
351
50
25%
35
15
18
18
9%
19
10%
19
201
84
194
157
26
26
6%
104
25%
55
49
36
36
9%
418
33
33
9%
35
9%
35
45
45
12%
370
24
24
7%
85
25%
36
49
47
47
14%
338
71
31%
32
39
24
24
9%
63
23%
48
15
27
27
10%
21
21
6%
54
14%
30
24
27
27
7%
228
190
279
91
379
–41
35
35
18%
27
27
7%
41
11%
41
29
29
9%
52
16%
52
82
36
10%
371
44
44
14%
316
28
28
9%
71
23%
42
29
28
28
9%
304
70
20%
34
36
78
33
10%
45
347
24
22
22
6%
79
23%
49
30
57
31
9%
26
339
–23
44
44
12%
113
30%
67
46
51
28
7%
23
380
–76
25
25
7%
63
17%
63
20
20
5%
366
139
38%
99
40
368
–2
77
29%
41
36
35
35
13%
267
25
25
7%
114
32%
74
40
47
19
5%
28
354
–87
30
30
9%
90
26%
61
29
53
53
15%
61
17%
41
20
51%
28%
9%
350
355
87%
27
27
7%
119
30%
80
39
36
36
9%
19
19
6%
97
31%
66
31
–30%
–30%
394
–44
316
39
22%
223%
136%
3%
200%
200%
Source: Internal Revenue Service, from Economy.com.
Table 11.6
Migration Flows into and out of Garfield County, 1989–2005
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Change
In-Migration to Garfield County from
Arizona
Coconino County
Southern California
Los Angeles County
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Share
Within Region
22
Share
9%
Iron County
Washington County
22
Salt Lake County
Share
Total In-Migrants
280
233
290
Out-Migration from Garfield to
Southern Nevada
32
Clark County
32
Share
10%
Within Region
28
39
Share
11% 12%
Iron County
39
Washington County
28
29
Salt Lake County
29
Share
9%
Total Out-Migrants
253
325
Net Migrants
27
–92
27
27
20
20
8%
24
9%
24
8%
24
28
28
10%
281
24
33
33
11%
304
22
22
8%
63
22%
35
28
56
22%
36
20
281
9
252
29
249
69
25%
43
26
24
24
9%
274
–25
79
27%
41
38
18
18
6%
290
14
33
33
11%
28
9%
28
35
35
11%
313
13
13
5%
93
33%
51
42
282
31
16
7%
22
22
19
19
7%
20
7%
16
28
28
13%
219
288
20
22
22
8%
290
276
–57
30
30
12%
57
22%
35
22
22
22
8%
259
29
25
25
7%
101
29%
58
43
22
22
6%
348
–58
ECONOMIC
AND
20
20
8%
27
9%
27
23
23
8%
297
67
22%
31
36
24
24
8%
302
–5
40
40
13%
30
10%
30
23
23
9%
262
31
31
10%
309
37
15%
18
19
23
23
9%
244
18
22
22
8%
77
28%
47
30
19
19
7%
274
35
28
28
10%
81
29%
50
31
54
22%
25
29
25
25
10%
24
10%
24
30
248
16
16
5%
92
28%
66
26
23
23
7%
330
–82
240
28
13%
28
18
18
8%
223
38
38
13%
58
20%
32
26
BUREAU
OF
164%
18%
–36%
289
3%
–50%
87
76
29% 22%
44
46
43
30
23
49
23
30
8%
9%
304
343
–64 –120
106
33%
68
38
20
20
6%
317
–28
172
90%
BUSINESS RESEARCH
279%
74%
36%
–31%
–31%
25%
moving there. In-migration from Coconino declined slightly (–5 percent) between 1991 and
2005 after more than doubling from 1991 to 1997. Out-migration from Kane to Coconino in
2005 was half of what it was in 1989, but it increased 26 percent between 1991 and 2005 and
more than doubled from 1991 to 1998 before falling to its 2005 level.
Table 11.7
Migration Flows into and out of Kane County, 1989–2005
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Change
In-Migration to Kane County from
Arizona
Coconino County
Share
Maricopa County
Southern California
Los Angeles County
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Share
Within Region
33
Share
9%
Iron County
Washington County
33
Share
9%
Salt Lake County
Share
Utah County
Total In-Migrants
272
375
38
38
12%
51
51
14%
34
34
9%
53
53
12%
56
56
11%
69
69
13%
92
92
20%
54
54
11%
39
39
10%
42
42
10%
47
27
9%
20
50
50
11%
28
28
9%
34
11%
22
22
29
29
8%
49
13%
34
34
9%
67
17%
25
25
5%
44
10%
31
31
6%
81
16%
67
17%
25
25
6%
44
10%
35
35
8%
81
16%
48
48
9%
30
30
7%
68
15%
41
27
6%
29
29
6%
54
54
11%
99
20%
38
61
12%
50
50
10%
28
28
7%
40
10%
49
13%
26
26
7%
41
41
8%
105
20%
44
61
12%
51
51
10%
393
460
528
516
454
507
386
27
27
9%
61
19%
34
27
9%
62
33
11%
29
314
23
23
5%
64
14%
29
35
8%
47
47
10%
367
29
29
7%
58
13%
31
27
6%
70
40
9%
30
433
26
26
7%
30
30
9%
56
56
19%
37
37
12%
61
61
13%
65
65
12%
73
73
17%
50
50
13%
45
45
11%
22
22
5%
130
28%
52
78
17%
24
24
5%
27
27
5%
234
44%
24
210
40%
26
26
6%
105
25%
40
65
15%
29
29
7%
65
41
9%
24
30
30
6%
114
25%
43
71
15%
54
54
12%
88
23%
15
73
19%
31
31
8%
469
47
530
–76
423
84
465
–79
387
46
20
20
5%
100
24%
29
71
17%
62
31
7%
31
420
–106
34
11%
318
Out-Migration from Kane County to
Arizona
86
34
Coconino County
86
34
Share
20%
9%
Maricopa County
Southern Nevada
25
41
Clark County
25
41
Share
6% 10%
Within Region
43
97
94
Share
10% 23% 24%
Iron County
18
47
40
Washington County
25
50
54
Share
6% 12% 14%
29
36
38
Salt Lake County
29
36
38
Share
7%
9% 10%
Utah County
Total Out-Migrants
427
418
399
Net Migrants
–155
–43
–81
30
30
8%
74
21%
28
46
13%
28
28
8%
90
26%
32
58
17%
17
17
5%
90
31%
33
57
19%
360
7
346
47
294
166
49
15%
49
15%
321
207
40
10%
37
37
10%
41
41
11%
68
43
10%
25
36
36
8%
82
22%
32
50
13%
25
25
7%
36
36
8%
60
14%
27
33
8%
33
33
8%
47
47
10%
39
8%
39
8%
31
31
6%
18%
457
372
435
480
76%
50
50
12%
47
47
12%
53
53
13%
–27%
–50%
102
25%
38
64
16%
28
28
7%
25
25
6%
89
23%
32
57
15%
23
23
6%
21
21
5%
101
26%
27
74
19%
20
20
5%
408
49
393
–21
396
39
63
43
10%
20
38
38
9%
110
27%
35
75
18%
39
17
4%
22
414
66
Iron County has somewhat broader regional ties (Table 11.8). An average of one-tenth of its inmigrants came from Southern California30 over the 1991–2005 period, although that region took
only about 3 percent of Iron’s out-migrants. In-migration from Southern California grew 146
percent between 1991 and 2005, though it spiked in 1994 then was relatively low and flat from
1996 to 2002 (Figure 11.6a). Out-migration to Southern California increased 43 percent between
1989 and 2005, after hitting a peak in 2002 (Figure 11.6b). From 1991 to 2005 there was
consistent net in-migration from Southern California, although the flows between the two
Southern California is defined as Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, and Ventura counties.
30
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
173
–5%
68%
18%
19%
52%
52%
156%
94%
200%
34%
–41%
–3%
Table 11.8
Migration Flows into and out of Iron County, 1989–2005
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Change
In-Migration to Iron County from
Arizona
85
33
31
47
54
27
57
59
34
70
43
34
79
115
Coconino County
30
33
20
29
19
20
30
Maricopa County
55
31
47
34
27
28
40
34
50
43
34
42
53
Mohave County
37
32
Southern California
179
184
318
462
344
155
182
181
142
184
158
122
176
262
441
Share
11% 11% 15% 21% 13%
7%
8%
7%
6%
8%
6%
5%
7%
9% 13%
Los Angeles County
37
58
141
118
107
87
50
42
66
71
35
47
20
57
94
Orange County
44
22
45
73
52
35
24
31
30
21
20
30
50
34
61
Riverside County
31
28
55
73
40
25
29
23
30
18
19
64
94
San Bernardino County
31
40
48
97
97
33
43
53
23
24
43
43
40
62
San Diego County
36
36
29
60
48
40
26
38
42
45
44
67
81
Ventura County
41
49
Southern Nevada
169
114
136
144
263
217
267
247
255
168
211
227
280
286
226
272
497
Clark County
169
114
136
144
263
217
242
229
211
168
211
227
280
286
226
272
497
Share
11%
7%
8%
9% 12% 10%
9% 10% 10%
7%
9% 10% 11% 11%
9% 10% 15%
Lincoln County
25
18
44
Within Region
180
296
249
191
323
268
367
343
397
464
459
402
504
483
486
558
579
Share
12% 19% 15% 12% 15% 12% 14% 16% 18% 19% 20% 17% 21% 19% 20% 20% 17%
Beaver County
28
34
35
19
32
48
30
34
49
67
99
74
80
66
Garfield County
39
35
36
43
41
51
31
18
47
50
35
58
66
44
46
68
Kane County
18
47
40
28
32
33
52
24
40
43
15
29
38
32
27
35
Washington County
162
182
174
127
214
159
297
228
307
347
332
303
350
280
336
405
410
Share
10% 12% 11%
8% 10%
7% 11% 10% 14% 14% 14% 13% 14% 11% 14% 15% 12%
343
338
339
403
486
478
720
626
588
750
722
743
643
713
670
782
817
Cache County
25
33
34
53
44
25
32
44
46
42
30
26
49
32
Davis County
38
35
25
31
36
35
64
31
36
49
53
61
39
42
53
Salt Lake County
145
139
138
151
214
219
316
257
217
283
209
258
207
224
236
229
209
Share
9%
9%
8%
9% 10% 10% 12% 12% 10% 12%
9% 11%
8%
9% 10%
8%
6%
Sevier County
35
40
38
28
42
39
71
48
37
51
80
103
40
81
56
82
83
Utah County
110
118
125
79
108
104
141
89
128
141
180
123
138
161
204
188
227
Weber County
32
36
29
36
38
44
50
40
25
22
30
23
25
Total In-Migrants
1,557 1,532 1,625 1,625 2,132 2,206 2,606 2,188 2,194 2,443 2,343 2,359 2,439 2,597 2,412 2,783 3,423
Out-Migration from Iron County to
59
68
36
60
55
70
30
56
99
47
Arizona
22
16
25
Coconino County
20
34
19
18
26
Maricopa County
22
16
25
39
34
36
41
55
49
30
38
73
47
Mohave County
21
Southern California
49
28
30
20
43
38
60
80
72
87
119
67
21
70
Share
3%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
4%
5%
3%
1%
3%
Los Angeles County
26
28
14
36
41
35
23
21
25
Orange County
17
24
Riverside County
21
25
24
21
30
26
30
30
36
24
31
20
24
San Diego County
23
20
30
29
22
28
Southern Nevada
172
152
146
131
103
140
169
145
167
169
226
207
184
206
291
279
211
Clark County
172
130
146
131
103
140
169
145
143
169
226
207
184
206
291
279
211
Share
11%
8% 10%
9%
7%
9% 10%
8%
7%
8% 10%
9%
7%
8% 11% 10%
8%
Lincoln County
22
24
Within Region
240
227
235
316
183
265
423
412
413
382
426
382
434
514
550
630
533
Beaver County
32
26
55
35
36
41
52
42
63
41
61
41
Garfield County
28
30
25
24
32
Kane County
44
41
38
31
34
29
32
27
Washington County
240
227
235
284
183
265
325
357
337
278
385
299
358
397
453
542
460
Share
15% 14% 16% 19% 13% 17% 19% 19% 17% 13% 16% 13% 14% 16% 17% 20% 18%
366
322
321
435
457
408
400
465
520
583
628
670
836
717
720
652
747
Cache County
29
47
38
23
32
38
42
43
43
38
46
36
44
54
37
Davis County
43
37
33
50
39
48
47
36
35
70
58
68
57
65
31
48
51
Salt Lake County
175
204
170
214
171
199
169
202
251
218
254
240
271
295
242
274
286
Share
11% 13% 11% 14% 12% 13% 10% 11% 13% 10% 11% 11% 11% 12%
9% 10% 11%
Sevier County
49
29
59
25
34
28
46
23
32
48
74
30
51
54
64
Utah County
99
81
89
95
95
113
103
132
127
142
159
181
238
220
186
171
251
Weber County
15
29
33
20
31
42
23
36
21
38
Total Out-Migrants
1,557 1,566 1,499 1,495 1,384 1,525 1,719 1,853 1,999 2,103 2,345 2,269 2,484 2,530 2,649 2,670 2,595
Net Migrants
0
–34
126
130
748
681
887
335
195
340
–2
90
–45
67 –237
113
828
174
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
146%
194%
194%
222%
94%
153%
138%
44%
137%
106%
120%
114%
43%
–4%
23%
23%
122%
92%
104%
19%
63%
31%
154%
67%
counties were nearly equal in 2002. Clark County, Nevada, also provided an average of one-tenth
of Iron’s in-migrants from 1989 to 2005, and was the destination of 9 percent of its outmigrants. Flows in both directions increased over the period, with in-migration from Clark
growing 146 percent and out-migration to Clark growing 23 percent. The size of the flows was
fairly similar, though there was net in-migration from Clark in most years, including 2005.
Washington County was the source of an average of 12 percent of Iron’s in-migrants and the
destination of 16 percent of its out-migrants.
Figure 11.6a
In-Migration to Iron County, 1989-2005
600
Washington C ounty
Salt Lake C ounty
C lark C ounty
Southern C alifornia
500
400
300
200
100
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 11.6b
Out-Migration from Iron County, 1989-2005
600
Washington C ounty
Salt Lake C ounty
C lark C ounty
500
400
300
200
100
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
175
Like Iron County, an average of one-tenth of Washington County’s in-migrants have come from
Southern California, while that region has been the destination of an average of only 4 percent
of Washington’s out-migrants (Table 11.9, Figures 11.7a and 11.7b). Out-migration to Southern
California grew a modest 21 percent between 1989 and 2005, but in-migration from Southern
California jumped 941 percent—more than ten times its 1989 level. There has been net inmigration from Southern California in every year except 1989. Salt Lake County has been both
the main source of in-migrants and the main destination of out-migrants, averaging 16 percent
of the former and 14 percent of the latter. In-migration from Salt Lake County grew 140 percent
between 1989 and 2005, while out-migration to Salt Lake doubled over the same period. Clark
County, Nevada provided an average of 8 percent of Washington’s in-migrants and took 12
percent of the county’s out-migrants. While out-migration from Washington to Clark grew 33
percent between 1989 and 2005, in-migration from Clark to Washington increased 390 percent,
more than doubling from 2004 to 2005 alone. There was net out-migration to Clark in 1989,
Figure 11.7a
In-Migration to Washington County, 1989-2005
1,800
1,600
1,400
Salt Lake C ounty
C lark C ounty
Mohave C ounty
Iron C ounty
C oconino C ounty
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 11.7b
Out-Migration from Washington County, 1989-2005
800
700
Salt Lake C ounty
Iron C ounty
Mojave C ounty
C lark C ounty
C oconino C ounty
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
176
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 11.9
Migration Flows into and out of Washington County, 1989–2005
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
In-Migration to Washington County from
Arizona
141
87
294
193
378
Share
4%
2%
6%
4%
7%
Coconino County
49
90
43
69
Maricopa County
143
82
110
Mohave County
92
87
61
68
176
Southern California
155
155
507
717
887
Share
4%
4% 11% 15% 16%
Los Angeles County
155
155
171
192
265
Orange County
63
128
163
Riverside County
76
117
123
98
93
132
San Diego County
71
128
130
Santa Barbara County
34
Ventura County
28
59
40
Southern Nevada
258
261
466
492
478
Clark County
258
261
466
492
478
Share
7%
7% 10% 10%
8%
Within Region
323
277
317
350
296
Share
8%
7%
7%
7%
5%
Beaver County
30
29
Garfield County
28
28
20
26
Iron County
240
227
235
284
183
Share
6%
6%
5%
6%
3%
Kane County
25
50
54
46
58
1,445 1,127 1,417 1,348 1,799
Davis County
160
106
194
135
200
Salt Lake County
553
481
673
623
843
Share
14% 12% 15% 13% 15%
Utah County
349
286
303
293
405
Weber County
75
89
76
95
83
Total In-Migrants
3,897 3,878 4,576 4,700 5,712
2005 Change
352
280
381
360
401
324
415
412
380
433
495
710
5%
4%
6%
6%
7%
5%
7%
6%
5%
5%
6%
6%
90
84
85
112
70
79
62
78
72
88
77
68
156
123
156
111
145
103
138
154
129
159
163
221
106
73
140
115
164
99
140
150
159
130
193
391
1,164
806
561
564
394
431
375
444
479
616
920 1,613
16% 12%
9%
9%
7%
7%
6%
7%
6%
8% 11%
15%
393
300
188
243
128
147
150
116
186
171
293
420
171
89
81
77
66
86
52
92
102
78
140
238
164
100
112
61
52
42
44
43
49
109
102
307
212
155
94
72
87
69
57
63
52
92
130
259
150
108
86
75
61
63
46
71
90
84
143
235
26
20
24
34
61
48
54
36
24
26
39
58
78
93
563
541
541
496
435
448
435
497
580
670
593 1,306
563
541
541
496
435
448
435
497
580
670
593 1,263
8%
8%
9%
8%
7%
7%
7%
7%
8%
8%
7%
11%
375
416
510
581
397
523
424
518
527
593
685
604
5%
6%
8%
9%
7%
9%
7%
8%
7%
7%
8%
5%
15
39
15
24
36
30
46
40
40
39
31
38
42
36
19
30
31
22
43
26
43
30
38
265
325
357
337
278
385
299
358
397
453
542
460
4%
5%
6%
5%
5%
6%
5%
5%
5%
6%
6%
4%
57
49
78
210
65
71
73
71
64
57
74
75
2,320 2,445 2,223 2,241 2,278 2,423 2,509 2,683 3,194 3,164 3,090 3,464
225
236
241
220
180
250
201
224
344
257
296
294
1,099 1,135 1,069 1,081 1,158 1,023 1,128 1,201 1,524 1,350 1,202 1,328
15% 17% 17% 18% 19% 17% 18% 18% 20% 17% 14%
12%
333
525
463
400
494
591
552
512
566
605
717
797
163
127
132
151
117
111
108
151
159
181
220
250
7,135 6,746 6,327 6,138 6,031 6,114 6,251 6,675 7,555 7,962 8,584 11,093
Out-Migration from Washington County to
196
222
270
269
330
332
384
406
411
453
550
Arizona
123
168
176
195
188
Share
5%
6%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
8%
7%
7%
7%
8%
8%
8%
9% 11%
Coconino County
40
34
51
50
24
54
48
80
62
68
71
65
58
69
64
98
Maricopa County
83
78
75
99
55
76
82
75
95
141
127
145
135
129
167
142
Mohave County
56
50
46
91
66
73
115
80
103
109
119
160
150
222
278
Southern California
167
130
95
101
89
53
84
179
169
269
252
259
248
175
247
171
Share
6%
5%
4%
4%
3%
2%
3%
5%
4%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
5%
3%
Los Angeles County
46
33
42
44
38
32
33
55
43
58
51
52
74
49
62
59
Orange County
39
18
15
37
22
32
39
25
34
23
30
16
Riverside County
24
27
18
27
28
38
34
52
62
32
56
29
23
31
31
33
42
25
39
58
32
33
37
53
36
San Diego County
35
21
22
24
18
21
24
45
51
76
70
98
45
34
46
31
Ventura County
26
Southern Nevada
390
516
360
288
266
379
297
365
491
615
556
524
480
511
544
572
Clark County
390
516
360
288
266
379
297
365
491
615
556
524
480
511
544
572
Share
15% 19% 14% 11%
9% 14%
9% 10% 12% 13% 12% 11% 10% 10% 11% 11%
Within Region
162
237
208
200
281
227
358
385
334
457
388
330
426
344
422
495
Share
6%
9%
8%
7% 10%
9% 11% 11%
8%
9%
8%
7%
9%
7%
8% 10%
Beaver County
49
49
29
36
29
Garfield County
22
24
24
27
16
20
29
28
Iron County
162
182
174
127
214
159
297
228
307
347
332
303
350
280
336
405
Share
6%
7%
7%
5%
8%
6%
9%
6%
7%
7%
7%
6%
7%
6%
7%
8%
Kane County
33
34
49
67
44
61
81
27
61
40
27
27
35
50
33
761
780
788
889
942
734
943 1,059 1,288 1,598 1,422 1,577 1,878 1,650 1,717 1,670
Davis County
96
92
43
132
159
59
85
102
137
136
166
134
156
197
164
155
Salt Lake County
361
373
351
473
433
355
413
430
539
693
604
635
717
617
680
706
Share
13% 14% 14% 17% 15% 13% 13% 12% 13% 14% 13% 13% 14% 13% 13% 14%
Utah County
185
198
267
168
193
172
254
272
360
372
382
478
535
435
453
408
Weber County
45
37
37
52
66
58
44
73
88
101
62
100
95
112
108
125
Total Out-Migrants
2,685 2,698 2,581 2,736 2,829 2,652 3,201 3,574 4,138 4,843 4,658 4,748 5,008 4,872 5,153 5,210
Net Migrants
1,212 1,180 1,995 1,964 2,883 4,483 3,545 2,753 2,000 1,188 1,456 1,503 1,667 2,683 2,809 3,374
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
39%
325%
941%
171%
406%
390%
87%
92%
140%
84%
140%
185%
527
9%
81
136
268
202
4%
43
33
30
52
44
328%
518
518
9%
495
9%
20
26
410
7%
39
1,953
214
726
13%
474
112
5,617
5,476
33%
33%
BUREAU
404%
177
103%
64%
21%
–7%
26%
205%
153%
157%
101%
109%
352%
1990, and 1998–2000; in all other years in the period there was net in-migration from Clark. On
average, 5 percent of Washington’s in-migrants have come from Arizona, mostly Mohave,
Maricopa, and Coconino counties. Arizona has been the destination of 7 percent of
Washington’s out-migrants. Flows from Arizona grew 328 percent between 1989 and 2005, and
flows to Arizona grew 404 percent. There was net out-migration to Arizona in six of the 17
years, including 2002 to 2004. The rest of the years saw net in-migration from Arizona to
Washington. The four other counties in the five-county southwest region have supplied an
average of 7 percent of Washington’s in-migrants, combined, and received 9 percent of its outmigrants. The bulk of this exchange has been with Iron County.
Commuting Patterns
The Census Bureau publishes place of work for workers 16 years and older. In 1970 and 1980,
this included whether a person worked in or outside their county of residence. In 1990 and 2000,
the data also indicated whether persons worked in or outside their state of residence.
From 1990 to 2000, the share
Table 11.10
of southwest region residents
Place of Work for Five-County Region Residents,
1990 and 2000
who commuted outside the
region for work declined from
1990
2000
6.6 percent to 4.3 percent
No.
Share
No.
Share
Total workers 16 yrs and older
30,556 100% 57,377 100%
(Table 11.10). Most of those
29,075 95.2% 55,182 96.2%
working outside the region
Worked in region of residence
28,535 93.4% 54,302 94.6%
worked out of state, though
Worked outside region of residence
540 1.8%
880 1.5%
1,481 4.8% 2,195 3.8%
their share too decreased. In
Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data.
any case, nearly 95 percent of
the region’s resident workers
in 2000 had jobs within the region.
However, examining county-level data reveals some striking differences (Table 11.11). Kane
County has consistently had the lowest share of residents who work within the county. In 1970,
only 78.8 percent of Kane’s resident workforce had jobs in the county. The next lowest
proportion was in Washington County, where 88.5 percent worked in the county. By 1980, the
share of Kane workers with jobs in the county had declined to 69.6 percent. This share had
fallen in all counties in the region, such that 82.2 percent of Washington workers (still the
second lowest) worked in that county. In other words, out-commuting from each county
increased during the 1970s.31
By 1990, the share of Kane County’s resident workers who worked in the county had declined to
67.6 percent, and nearly 22 percent, more than one in five, worked out of state, mostly in
Coconino County, Arizona, in Page and Fredonia (see Table 11.19a below). In the other
counties in the region, more than 90 percent of workers worked in their county of residence.
Note that in 1970 and 1980 substantial and increasing shares of respondents did not report their place of work. In
1970 nonreporters ranged from 0.5 percent of total workers in Kane to 5.4 percent in Washington; in 1980 they
ranged from 4.5 percent in Kane to 10.6 percent in Washington. Therefore, some of the implied increase in outcommuting may be due to an increase in nonreporting by those who worked in their county of residence. For
example, in Beaver County, the share of workers who said they worked in their county of residence declined from
1970 to 1980, but so did the share who said they worked outside the county. The share not reporting a place of
work more than doubled.
31
178
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Five percent of Washington County workers—the next highest share—commuted out of state.
In 2000, Kane County out-commuting had declined such that 71.2 percent now worked in the
county and “only” 19.1 percent worked out of state. The share of out-commuters also declined
in Washington County, from 7.3 percent to 6.7 percent. However, out-commuting increased in
Beaver, Garfield, and Iron counties over 1990 levels, to the point that Garfield now had the
second-highest share of out-commuters with 10.4 percent.
Table 11.11
Place of Work by County of Residence, 1970–2000
1970
Total workers
Place of work not reported
Beaver
No. Share
1,445 100%
1,330 92.0%
68 4.7%
47 3.3%
Place of work not reported
Beaver
No. Share
1,420 100%
1,259 88.7%
65 4.6%
96 6.8%
Beaver
No. Share
1,660 100%
1,620 97.6%
1,544 93.0%
76 4.6%
40 2.4%
Beaver
No. Share
2,460 100%
2,440 99.2%
2,258 91.8%
182 7.4%
20 0.8%
Garfield
No. Share
1,024 100%
915 89.4%
63 6.2%
46 4.5%
Iron
No. Share
4,573 100%
4,235 92.6%
183 4.0%
155 3.4%
Kane
No. Share
849 100%
669 78.8%
176 20.7%
4 0.5%
Washington
No.
Share
4,391 100%
3,888 88.5%
264 6.0%
239 5.4%
Iron
No. Share
6,547 100%
5,734 87.6%
318 4.9%
495 7.6%
Kane
No. Share
1,324 100%
922 69.6%
342 25.8%
60 4.5%
Washington
No.
Share
8,383 100%
6,889 82.2%
604 7.2%
890 10.6%
Iron
No. Share
8,366 100%
8,206 98.1%
7,766 92.8%
440 5.3%
160 1.9%
Kane
Washington
No. Share
No.
Share
1,939 100% 17,023 100%
1,514 78.1% 16,178 95.0%
1,311 67.6% 15,791 92.8%
203 10.5%
387 2.3%
425 21.9%
845 5.0%
Garfield
Iron
No. Share No. Share
1,983 100% 15,249 100%
1,955 98.6% 14,975 98.2%
1,776 89.6% 13,882 91.0%
179 9.0% 1,093 7.2%
28 1.4%
274 1.8%
Kane
Washington
No. Share
No.
Share
2,621 100% 35,064 100%
2,120 80.9% 33,692 96.1%
1,867 71.2% 32,708 93.3%
253 9.7%
984 2.8%
501 19.1% 1,372 3.9%
1980
Garfield
No. Share
1,250 100%
1,090 87.2%
91 7.3%
69 5.5%
1990
Garfield
No. Share
1,568 100%
1,557 99.3%
1,459 93.0%
98 6.3%
11 0.7%
2000
The Census Bureau published detailed county-to-county worker flow files for 1990 and 2000
that show in- and out-commuting by origin and destination county for the entire country. For
the purposes of this study, BEBR focused on flows between the five-county region and Arizona,
southern California, southern Nevada (primarily Clark County), and the Wasatch Front.32
When we look at the five-county region as a whole, we see that the strongest labor force ties are
with southern Nevada, Arizona, and the Wasatch Front (Tables 11.12a and 11.12b). In 1990,
Southern California is defined as in note 29; southern Nevada comprises Clark, Lincoln, and Nye counties; and
the Wasatch Front is defined as Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber counties.
32
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
179
Clark County was the workplace of 30.2 percent of regional residents who worked elsewhere.
More than one-quarter commuted to Arizona, with most (18.5 percent) going to Coconino
County, and one-tenth worked in the Wasatch Front. By 2000, Clark County’s share of outcommuters had declined slightly to 28.7 percent and Arizona’s share was down to 24.1 percent,
but the portion of those commuting to the Wasatch Front had increased to 12.3 percent. The
number of workers commuting to southern California was essentially unchanged from 1990 to
2000, but their share of total out-commuters declined from 6.2 percent to 4.0 percent.
Table 11.12a
Five-County Region Commuting Patterns, 1990
1990 Out-Commuting Destinations
Work County
Count Share
Arizona
546 27.0%
Coconino County
373
18.5%
Mohave County
120
5.9%
Maricopa County
23
1.1%
Navajo County
14
0.7%
Yuma County
5
0.2%
Apache County
3
0.1%
Gila County
3
0.1%
Yavapai County
3
0.1%
Pima County
2
0.1%
Southern California
Los Angeles County
Orange County
San Diego County
Ventura County
Riverside County
125
70
19
17
11
5
3
6.2%
3.5%
0.9%
0.8%
0.5%
0.2%
0.1%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Nye County
Lincoln County
641
610
27
4
31.7%
30.2%
1.3%
0.2%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
Weber County
Davis County
202
137
51
8
6
10.0%
6.8%
2.5%
0.4%
0.3%
Rest of Utah
San Juan County
338
184
16.7%
9.1%
2,021
100%
Total Out-Commuters
1990 In-Commuting Sources
Residence County
Count Share
Arizona
298 25.1%
Mohave County
115
9.7%
Coconino County
114
9.6%
Gila County
44
3.7%
Maricopa County
17
1.4%
Yavapai County
8
0.7%
Southern California
San Diego County
Orange County
14
9
5
1.2%
0.8%
0.4%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
81
81
6.8%
6.8%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
Weber County
Davis County
484
249
165
47
23
40.8%
21.0%
13.9%
4.0%
1.9%
Rest of Utah
Piute County
221
59
18.6%
5.0%
1,186
835
100%
Total In-Commuters
Net Out-Commuters
Note: The figures for Total Out-Commuters and Total In-Commuters include commuters to and from
counties other than those shown here.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau County-to-County Worker Flow Files.
Arizona and the Wasatch Front were the main sources of workers commuting into the fivecounty region in 1990 and 2000. Arizona, primarily Mohave (9.7 percent) and Coconino (9.6
percent) counties, provided one-fourth of the workers coming into the region in 1990 and the
Wasatch Front was home to more than two-fifths of in-commuters, over half of whom (21.0
percent) came from Salt Lake County. By 2000, the two regions’ shares had nearly switched:
180
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Arizona now supplied almost two-fifths of in-commuters and the Wasatch Front supplied onequarter. Mohave County had more than doubled its share to over one-fifth (22.7 percent) of
incoming workers, while Salt Lake’s share had fallen to about one-seventh (14.4 percent).
Southern Nevada accounted for a little more than 6 percent of in-commuters in both years,
while those from southern California grew from 1.2 percent in 1990 to 5.2 percent in 2000.
Table 11.12b
Five-County Region Commuting Patterns, 2000
Work County
Count Share
Arizona
741 24.1%
Coconino County
411
13.4%
Mohave County
214
7.0%
Maricopa County
87
2.8%
Pinal County
10
0.3%
Pima County
8
0.3%
Apache County
5
0.2%
0.1%
Navajo County
2
Yavapai County
2
0.1%
Yuma County
2
0.1%
Southern California
Orange County
Los Angeles County
San Diego County
Riverside County
124
55
37
14
9
9
4.0%
1.8%
1.2%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Lincoln County
Nye County
907
883
17
7
29.5%
28.7%
0.6%
0.2%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
Davis County
Weber County
379
253
96
17
13
12.3%
8.2%
3.1%
0.6%
0.4%
Rest of Utah
San Juan County
501
161
16.3%
5.2%
3,075
100%
Total Out-Commuters
Residence County
Count Share
Arizona
794 37.7%
Mohave County
477
22.7%
Coconino County
273
13.0%
Maricopa County
32
1.5%
Cochise County
6
0.3%
Navajo County
6
0.3%
Southern California
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Riverside County
San Diego County
110
51
17
16
16
10
5.2%
2.4%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.5%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Lincoln County
130
118
12
6.2%
5.6%
0.6%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
Davis County
Weber County
525
304
132
60
29
25.0%
14.4%
6.3%
2.9%
1.4%
Rest of Utah
Sevier County
380
142
18.1%
6.7%
2,104
971
100%
Total In-Commuters
Net Out-Commuters
Beaver and Iron counties’ main labor force ties are within the five-county region. In both 1990
and 2000, Iron was the main destination of Beaver County workers who commuted outside the
county (Tables 11.13a and 11.13b). In 1990, one-fifth of out-commuters worked in Iron; by
2000 this had increased to more than half. Iron has also been the main source of in-commuters
to Beaver: two-fifths of in-commuters came from Iron in 1990 and more than half in 2000.
Looking farther afield, 19.0 percent of Beaver’s out-commuters in 1990 worked in Millard
County, and 12.9 percent worked in southern California, namely San Bernardino, Los Angeles,
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
181
Table 11.13a
Beaver County Commuting Patterns, 1990
Work County
Count Share
Arizona
5 4.3%
Mohave County
5
4.3%
Southern California
Los Angeles County
Riverside County
15 12.9%
9
7.8%
3
2.6%
2.6%
3
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Lincoln County
14 12.1%
10
8.6%
4
3.4%
Within Region
Iron County
Washington County
31 26.7%
24 20.7%
7
6.0%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
11
7
4
Rest of Utah
Millard County
34 29.3%
22 19.0%
Total Out-Commuters
116
9.5%
6.0%
3.4%
Residence County
Count Share
Southern California
9
5.1%
San Diego County
9
5.1%
Within Region
Iron County
Garfield County
81 46.0%
71 40.3%
10
5.7%
Wasatch Front
Weber County
Utah County
Salt Lake County
28 15.9%
12
6.8%
10
5.7%
6
3.4%
Rest of Utah
Millard County
54 30.7%
31 17.6%
Total In-Commuters
Net In-Commuters
176
60
100%
100%
Table 11.13b
Beaver County Commuting Patterns, 2000
Work County
Count Share
Southern Nevada
12 5.9%
Clark County
12
5.9%
Within Region
Iron County
Washington County
Garfield County
126 62.4%
104 51.5%
19
9.4%
1.5%
3
7.4%
7.4%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
15
15
Rest of Utah
Piute County
41 20.3%
15
7.4%
Total Out-Commuters
202
Residence County
Count Share
Southern California
16
4.6%
Los Angeles County
16
4.6%
Within Region
Iron County
Kane County
Washington County
195 55.7%
187 53.4%
4
1.1%
4
1.1%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
46 13.1%
46 13.1%
Rest of Utah
Millard County
Sevier County
50 14.3%
23
6.6%
23
6.6%
100%
Total In-Commuters
Net In-Commuters
350
148
100%
182
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
and Riverside counties. An additional 12.1 percent commuted to Clark and Lincoln counties in
southern Nevada. However, only 5.1 percent of in-commuters to Beaver in 1990 came from
southern California (San Diego County) and none came from southern Nevada; Millard County
supplied 17.6 percent. Nearly 16 percent came from the Wasatch Front (Salt Lake, Utah, and
Weber counties). In 2000, after Iron County, Washington County was the most popular
destination of out-commuters, attracting 9.4 percent. Salt Lake and Piute counties each drew
7.4percent of out-commuters and Clark County was the workplace of nearly 6 percent. Salt Lake
was second to Iron as a source of in-commuters in 2000, sending 13.1 percent of Beaver’s total
in-commuters. Beaver was the only county in the region with net in-commuting in 1990 and
2000, growing from 60 net in-commuters to 148. There was net in-commuting to Garfield in
1990, but this had changed to net out-commuting by 2000. All other counties in the region had
consistent net out-commuting.
The main destination of Garfield County out-commuters has been neighboring San Juan County
(Tables 11.14a and 11.14b). In 1990, San Juan took 23.9 percent of Garfield’s out-commuters;
this increased to 25.1 percent in 2000. Other significant destinations included Wayne (16.5
percent), Iron (15.6 percent), and Beaver (9.2 percent) counties in 1990 and Iron (21.7 percent)
and Utah (12.6 percent) counties in 2000. The main source of in-commuters to Garfield has
been Piute County, supplying 32.9 percent of total in-commuters in 1990 and 21.1 percent in
2000. Iron County has also been a significant source of in-commuters, sending 17.4 percent in
1990 and 9.9 percent in 2000. The Wasatch Front counties of Salt Lake and Utah each provided
14.2 percent of Garfield’s in-commuters in 1990. While this declined to 8.5 percent from Salt
Lake County in 2000, Kane County nearly quadrupled its relative contribution to 19.0 percent in
2000, up from 5.2 percent in 1990.
Table 11.14a
Garfield County Commuting Patterns, 1990
Work County
Count Share
Arizona
4 3.7%
Maricopa County
4
3.7%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
3
3
Within Region
Iron County
Beaver County
Kane County
Washington County
2.8%
2.8%
39 35.8%
17 15.6%
10
9.2%
6.4%
7
5
4.6%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
2
2
Rest of Utah
San Juan County
Wayne County
1.8%
1.8%
Residence County
Count Share
Within Region
39 25.2%
Iron County
27 17.4%
Kane County
8
5.2%
Washington County
4
2.6%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
44 28.4%
22 14.2%
22 14.2%
Rest of Utah
Piute County
72 46.5%
51 32.9%
Total In-Commuters
Net In-Commuters
155
46
100%
57 52.3%
26 23.9%
18 16.5%
Total Out-Commuters
109
100%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
183
Table 11.14b
Garfield County Commuting Patterns, 2000
Work County
Count Share
Arizona
3 1.4%
Mohave County
3
1.4%
4.8%
4.8%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
10
10
Within Region
Iron County
Washington County
Kane County
61 29.5%
45 21.7%
12
5.8%
4
1.9%
Wasatch Front
Utah County
Salt Lake County
36 17.4%
26 12.6%
10
4.8%
Rest of Utah
San Juan County
82 39.6%
52 25.1%
Total Out-Commuters
207
Residence County
Count Share
Arizona
9 6.3%
Coconino County
9
6.3%
Within Region
Kane County
Iron County
Beaver County
44 31.0%
27 19.0%
14
9.9%
3
2.1%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
12
12
Rest of Utah
Piute County
64 45.1%
30 21.1%
Total In-Commuters
Net Out-Commuters
142
65
8.5%
8.5%
100%
100%
Table 11.15a
Iron County Commuting Patterns, 1990
Work County
Count Share
Arizona
3 0.5%
Yavapai County
3
0.5%
Residence County
Count Share
Southern California
5
1.4%
Orange County
5
1.4%
0.8%
0.8%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Nye County
100 16.7%
91 15.2%
9
1.5%
Within Region
Washington County
Beaver County
Garfield County
Kane County
378 63.0%
276 46.0%
71 11.8%
27
4.5%
4
0.7%
Within Region
Washington County
Beaver County
Garfield County
Kane County
Southern California
Orange County
5
5
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Davis County
37
31
6
6.2%
5.2%
1.0%
Rest of Utah
25
4.2%
600
100%
Total Out-Commuters
15
15
4.1%
4.1%
213 57.6%
166 44.9%
24
6.5%
17
4.6%
6
1.6%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
68 18.4%
50 13.5%
18
4.9%
Rest of Utah
49 13.2%
Total In-Commuters
Net Out-Commuters
370
230
100%
184
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
As mentioned above, Iron County’s main labor force ties are within the five-county region
(Tables 11.15a, above, and 11.15b). The other four counties combined were the destination of
63.0 percent of Iron out-commuters in 1990 and 66.9 percent in 2000. They also supplied 57.6
percent of in-commuters in 1990 and 69.7 percent in 2000. Iron County’s main partner in the
exchange of workers has been Washington County. In 1990, 46.0 percent of Iron’s outcommuters worked in Washington, and that county supplied 44.9 percent of Iron’s incommuters. By 2000 the shares had increased: nearly half of Iron’s out-commuters worked in
Washington and more than half of its in-commuters came from Washington. This is not
surprising, considering that Iron and Washington are the economic engines of the southwest
region.
Other significant destinations of Iron out-commuters include Clark County, Nevada (15.2
percent) and Beaver County (11.8 percent) in 1990. Although the number of workers
commuting to Clark County increased by about 20 percent from 1990 to 2000, their share of
total out-commuters declined to 8.0 percent. Beaver’s share grew to 13.7 percent. Among
sources of in-commuters in 1990, Salt Lake County, with 13.5 percent, was a distant second to
Washington. By 2000, Beaver was the second largest source with 10.3 percent, followed by
Sevier with 8.8 percent. The Wasatch Front counties of Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah combined
supplied 8.8 percent of in-commuters in 2000.
Table 11.15b
Iron County Commuting Patterns, 2000
Work County
Count Share
Arizona
6 0.4%
Coconino County
6
0.4%
Southern California
Orange County
Los Angeles County
41
25
14
2
3.0%
1.8%
1.0%
0.1%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Lincoln County
119
109
10
8.7%
8.0%
0.7%
Within Region
Washington County
Beaver County
Kane County
Garfield County
915 66.9%
677 49.5%
187 13.7%
37
2.7%
14
1.0%
Wasatch Front
Utah County
Salt Lake County
Weber County
Davis County
Rest of Utah
Total Out-Commuters
74
32
19
13
10
5.4%
2.3%
1.4%
1.0%
0.7%
104
7.6%
1,367
100%
Residence County
Count Share
Arizona
26
2.6%
Coconino County
12
1.2%
Mohave County
8
0.8%
Navajo County
6
0.6%
Southern California
Los Angeles County
Within Region
Washington County
Beaver County
Garfield County
Kane County
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
Davis County
Rest of Utah
Sevier County
Total In-Commuters
Net Out-Commuters
8
8
0.8%
0.8%
704 69.7%
544 53.9%
104 10.3%
45
4.5%
11
1.1%
89
45
28
16
8.8%
4.5%
2.8%
1.6%
149 14.8%
89
8.8%
1,010
357
100%
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
185
As noted earlier, of the five counties in the southwest region, Kane has the largest share of
resident workers with jobs outside their home county. Most of these work in Arizona (Tables
11.16a and 11.16b), particularly Coconino County. In 1990, 63.1 percent of Kane’s outcommuters worked in four Arizona counties, with Coconino claiming the lion’s share (58.0
percent). Although Arizona’s share of out-commuters had declined slightly to 59.0 percent in
2000, Kane residents were now commuting to seven Arizona counties, with the majority (51.
percent) still going to Coconino. San Juan County has also been the destination of a significant
share of out-commuters, claiming one-quarter in 1990 and 14.5 percent in 2000. In 1990, only
4.0 percent of Kane out-commuters worked in another county in the southwest region, but this
nearly quadrupled by 2000, with most of those (10.3 percent) going to Washington County.
Table 11.16a
Kane County Commuting Patterns, 1990
Work County
Count Share
Arizona
396 63.1%
Coconino County
364
58.0%
Mohave County
18
2.9%
1.8%
Navajo County
11
0.5%
Maricopa County
3
Southern California
Los Angeles County
10
10
1.6%
1.6%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
11
11
1.8%
1.8%
Within Region
Washington County
Garfield County
Iron County
25
11
8
6
4.0%
1.8%
1.3%
1.0%
3
3
0.5%
0.5%
Rest of Utah
San Juan County
175
158
27.9%
25.2%
Total Out-Commuters
628
100%
Wasatch Front
Utah County
Residence County
Count Share
Arizona
169 77.2%
Coconino County
108 49.3%
Gila County
44 20.1%
Mohave County
17
7.8%
Within Region
Washington County
Garfield County
Iron County
24 11.0%
13
5.9%
7
3.2%
4
1.8%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
7
7
3.2%
3.2%
Rest of Utah
Tooele County
7
7
3.2%
3.2%
219
409
100%
Total In-Commuters
Net Out-Commuters
In addition to being a major out-commuting destination, Arizona is also a major source of incommuters to Kane, supplying more than three-quarters (77.2 percent) in 1990 and nearly twothirds (65.1 percent) in 2000. In 1990, half of Kane’s in-commuters came from Coconino
County, one-fifth from Gila, and about 8 percent from Mohave. By 2000, Coconino was
supplying more than half and Mohave sent one-eighth. About one-tenth of in-commuters in
1990 came from another county within the region, with most coming from Washington. By
2000, this had doubled, with Washington and Iron each supplying about 10 percent of Kane’s
in-commuters. Also in 2000, Clark County, Nevada was the home of about 5 percent of Kane’s
in-commuters.
186
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 11.16b
Kane County Commuting Patterns, 2000
Work County
Count Share
Arizona
445 59.0%
Coconino County
385
51.1%
Mohave County
29
3.8%
Maricopa County
14
1.9%
1.3%
Pinal County
10
Apache County
3
0.4%
Navajo County
2
0.3%
0.3%
Yavapai County
2
Southern California
Los Angeles County
3
3
0.4%
0.4%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
15
15
2.0%
2.0%
Within Region
Washington County
Garfield County
Iron County
Beaver County
120
78
27
11
4
15.9%
10.3%
3.6%
1.5%
0.5%
2
2
0.3%
0.3%
Within Rest of Utah
San Juan County
131
109
17.4%
14.5%
Total Out-Commuters
754
100%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Residence County
Count Share
Arizona
244 65.1%
Coconino County
197 52.5%
Mohave County
47 12.5%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
19
19
Within Region
Washington County
Iron County
Garfield County
82 21.9%
41 10.9%
37
9.9%
4
1.1%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
10
7
3
2.7%
1.9%
0.8%
Within Rest of Utah
Cache County
14
10
3.7%
2.7%
375
379
100%
Total In-Commuters
Net Out-Commuters
5.1%
5.1%
Clark County, Nevada and Iron County draw the largest shares of Washington County residents
who work outside the county (Tables 11.17a and 11.17b). In 1990, more than 40 percent of
Washington’s out-commuters worked in Clark County and 13.5 percent worked in Iron. By
2000, the share going to Clark had declined to 31.3 percent, though the number of commuters
grew by almost 50 percent, but Iron’s share had increased to 23.1 percent. Washington also
sends significant portions of its out-commuters to the Wasatch Front and Arizona. In 1990, 12.1
percent of Washington out-commuters worked in Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber counties
combined, with most of those going to Salt Lake. In 2000, Weber was replaced by Davis County
and the Wasatch Front’s share had declined to 10.7 percent, though Salt Lake County’s share
actually increased slightly over 1990. Washington residents commuted to eight Arizona counties
in 1990, with Mohave attracting most of them. By 2000, the share of out-commuters working in
Arizona had increased slightly from 11.2 percent to 12.2 percent, and Mohave County
maintained its majority position. In 1990, southern California attracted a small but significant
share (7.7 percent) of Washington’s out-commuters, but this had declined by more than half (to
3.4 percent) by 2000.
For workers commuting into Washington County, the main sources are the Wasatch Front,
other counties within the region (primarily Iron), and Arizona. In 1990, the four Wasatch Front
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
187
Table 11.17a
Washington County Commuting Patterns, 1990
Work County
Count Share
Arizona
138 11.2%
Mohave County
97
7.9%
Maricopa County
16
1.3%
Coconino County
9
0.7%
Yuma County
5
0.4%
Apache County
3
0.2%
Gila County
3
0.2%
Navajo County
3
0.2%
Pima County
2
0.2%
Southern California
Los Angeles County
San Diego County
Orange County
Ventura County
95
57
17
14
5
2
7.7%
4.6%
1.4%
1.1%
0.4%
0.2%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Nye County
513
495
18
41.6%
40.2%
1.5%
Within Region
Iron County
Kane County
Beaver County
Garfield County
191
166
13
8
4
15.5%
13.5%
1.1%
0.6%
0.3%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
Weber County
149
97
44
8
12.1%
7.9%
3.6%
0.6%
47
3.8%
1,232
100%
Rest of Utah
Total Out-Commuters
Residence County
Count Share
Arizona
129 13.9%
Mohave County
98 10.5%
Maricopa County
17
1.8%
Yavapai County
8
0.9%
Coconino County
6
0.6%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
66
66
7.1%
7.1%
Within Region
Iron County
Kane County
Beaver County
Garfield County
299 32.2%
276 29.7%
11
1.2%
7
0.8%
5
0.5%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
Weber County
Davis County
337 36.2%
164 17.6%
115 12.4%
35
3.8%
23
2.5%
Rest of Utah
Total In-Commuters
Net Out-Commuters
47
5.1%
930
302
100%
counties supplied 36.2 percent of Washington’s in-commuters, including 17.6 percent from Salt
Lake County and 12.4 percent from Utah. Another 32.2 percent came from the four other
southwestern counties, 29.7 percent from Iron alone. Arizona provided 13.9 percent of incommuters, most of them (10.5 percent) from Mohave County. By 2000, the Wasatch Front’s
share had declined to 18.1 percent, while those of the rest of the region and Arizona had
increased to 38.6 percent and 25.3 percent, respectively. Iron County was now supplying onethird of the workers who commuted into Washington County and Mohave County sent onefifth. About 5 percent came from Clark County, Nevada, essentially the same as Utah County’s
share, but smaller than its 1990 share of 7.1 percent.
188
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
Table 11.17b
Washington County Commuting Patterns, 2000
Work County
Count Share
Arizona
287 12.2%
Mohave County
182
7.7%
Maricopa County
73
3.1%
Coconino County
20
0.8%
Pima County
8
0.3%
Apache County
2
0.1%
0.1%
Yuma County
2
Southern California
Orange County
Los Angeles County
San Diego County
Riverside County
80
30
20
14
9
7
3.4%
1.3%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Lincoln County
Nye County
751
737
7
7
31.9%
31.3%
0.3%
0.3%
Within Region
Iron County
Kane County
Beaver County
589
544
41
4
25.0%
23.1%
1.7%
0.2%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
Davis County
252
207
38
7
10.7%
8.8%
1.6%
0.3%
Rest of Utah
143
6.1%
2,356
100%
Total Out-Commuters
Residence County
Count Share
Arizona
515 25.3%
Mohave County
422 20.7%
Coconino County
55
2.7%
Maricopa County
32
1.6%
Cochise County
6
0.3%
Southern California
Los Angeles County
Orange County
Riverside County
San Diego County
86
27
17
16
16
10
4.2%
1.3%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.5%
Southern Nevada
Clark County
Lincoln County
111
99
12
5.4%
4.9%
0.6%
Within Region
Iron County
Kane County
Beaver County
Garfield County
786 38.6%
677 33.2%
78
3.8%
19
0.9%
12
0.6%
Wasatch Front
Salt Lake County
Utah County
Davis County
Weber County
368 18.1%
194
9.5%
101
5.0%
44
2.2%
29
1.4%
Rest of Utah
103
5.1%
2,038
318
100%
Total In-Commuters
Net Out-Commuters
Transportation
Transportation costs are an essential factor in regional economic development. They influence
the location of firms and the movement of goods and labor. These costs are not simply the price
of gasoline or airfares or even freight shipping costs. They also include the ease of access
between a given region and its external markets. In the five-county region of southwestern Utah,
only Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties are traversed by Interstate 15, and only Beaver and
Iron have railroad access (Figure 11.8). Iron County has a regional airport, including FedEx and
UPS as tenants, and Washington County has begun the process of building one. Garfield and
Kane counties’ remoteness has hindered their development. Both counties are bypassed by the
interstate and neither is served by rail lines. In fact, neither county is completely spanned east to
west by a paved highway. This lack of transportation options impedes economic development by
making it more costly to transport raw materials, goods, and people into and out of the counties.
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH
189
Figure 11.8
Road and Rail Networks in the Southwest
,
Legend
l
Cedar City Regional
Interstate
Highway
Paved Road
Unpaved Road
Railroad
Municipality
Source: Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, downloaded December 18, 2007; Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Utah.
The railroad first came to Beaver County, to Milford, in 1880.33 By 1899 it crossed Iron County,
and within six years it was complete to southern California. The spur from Lund to Cedar City
was completed in 1923.34 This greatly reduced the “cost of distance” for the counties, making it
easier to send local products (e.g., agricultural and, later, manufactured goods) to the larger
markets of Salt Lake City and Los Angeles.
A December 1969 map produced by the Utah Department of Highways35 shows completed
segments of I-15 in Utah. In the southwest, the only completed stretches were from about six
miles south of Kanosh in Millard County to about three miles north of the Beaver-Iron border,
and from about seven miles north of Cedar City to Washington City. According to the Federal
Highway Administration, the section of I-15 through the Virgin River Gorge in the
northwestern corner of Arizona opened on December 14, 1973,36 connecting southwest Utah
with Las Vegas and southern California. This coincides roughly with the point when inmigration to the southwest began to take off.
33 Bradley, Martha Sonntag. A History of Beaver County. Utah Centennial County History Series, Utah State Historical
Society and Beaver County Commission, 1999.
34 Seegmiller, Janet Burton. A History of Iron County. Utah Centennial County History Series, Utah State Historical
Society and Iron County Commission, 1998.
35 Utah State Department of Highways. “Major Highways (Physical Type),” in Transportation System Map Portfolio,
Economic Development Region: Utah, Four Corners Regional Commission, December 1969.
36 “Interstate Fact of the Day” for May 30, 2007, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/
previousfacts.cfm; accessed November 29, 2007.
190
BUREAU
OF
ECONOMIC
AND
BUSINESS RESEARCH

Long-Term Economic Growth in Southwestern Utah

Transcription

Similar documents

traverse mountain Lehi, utah phone. 801.947.8300

ÿþM i c r o s o f t P o w e r P o i n t

Creedence Clearwater Revisited

Copper Globe Claim Link Flats Spurs Claims 3779C and 3779D

cottonwood plaza retail space

Virtual Data Fusion and True Mobility Virtual Data Fusion and True

pdf resume - Meet McKay Thomas

pdf - Fabian VanCott

WeatherNation TV Partners with ABC4 Utah and its `Pinpoint